9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 11 and 12
[Docket No. USCG-2022-0649]
RIN 1625-AC68
Implementation of Training Requirements for Personnel Serving on U.S.-flagged
Passenger Ships that Carry More than 12 Passengers on International Voyages
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its merchant mariner training
regulations to implement amendments to the International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and the Seafarers’
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code, to require personnel serving on U.S.flagged passenger ships carrying more than 12 passengers on international voyages to
complete passenger ship emergency familiarization. The proposed rule would expand the
applicability of the existing crowd management training requirement to include specified
ratings on passenger ships. These required trainings would promote the safety of life at
sea.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or
before [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-20220649 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. See the “Public
Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of information
discussed in section VII.D. of this preamble both to the Coast Guard’s online docket and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of
Management and Budget using their website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Comments sent to OIRA on the collection of information must reach OMB on or before
the comment due date listed on their website.
Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make arrangements
to view this material by calling the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Megan Johns Henry, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC1), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1255, email Megan.C.Johns@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I.
II.
III.

IV.
V.
VI.
VII.

Public Participation and Request for Comments
Abbreviations
Executive Summary
A. Purpose
B. Legal Authority
C. Summary of Major Provisions
D. Costs and Benefits
Background
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Incorporation by Reference
Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects

L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I.

Public Participation and Request for Comments
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking

and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your
comments can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment,
please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the
Federal Decision-Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to
www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0649 in the search box and click “Search.”
Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click
on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using
www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule
as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph,
and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public
comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions webpage. That
FAQ page also explains how to subscribe for email alerts that will notify you when
comments are posted or if a final rule is published. We review all comments received,
but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal Information. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received
will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov and will include any personal

information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in
response to this document, see DHS’s eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR
14226, March 11, 2020).
We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will consider doing so if we
determine from public comments that a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a
separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a
meeting.
II.

Abbreviations

BLS
BTS
CFR
CG-MMC
CSS Code
DHS
DOT
GSA
HTW
IBR
IMO
M&IE
MISLE
MMC
MSC
NAICS
OMB
POA
PSC
§
SBA
SME
SOLAS
STCW Convention
STCW Code
U.S.C.
VSL
III.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Code of Federal Regulations
Coast Guard Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing
Code of Safe Practices for Cargo Stowage and Securing
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Transportation
U.S. General Services Administration
Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping
Incorporated by Reference
International Maritime Organization
Meal and Incidental Expenses
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
Merchant Mariner Credential
Maritime Safety Committee
North American Industry Classification System
Office of Management and Budget
Privately Owned Automobile
Port State Control
Section
Small Business Administration
Subject matter expert
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978
Seafarers’ Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code
United States Code
Value of a Statistical Life

Executive Summary
A. Purpose

The purpose of this proposed rule is to ensure the safety of passengers on board
U.S.-flagged passenger ships by ensuring all shipboard personnel have completed
training and are competent to assist passengers in the event of an emergency. As defined
in title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in sections 11.1103 and 12.903,1
passenger ships are those ships carrying more than 12 passengers on an international
voyage.
The growing world-wide popularity of passenger ships as a vacation destination
has resulted in the launching of consistently larger foreign-flagged ships and subsequent
concerns over passenger safety. Passenger-ship travel requires passengers to be assured
of their safety regardless of where the ship originates or where it sails. Typically,
passengers are on board these ships for a short time and do not have maritime experience,
so they rely on the ship’s crew to assist them in emergency situations. It may be
impossible for passengers to identify which crewmembers are trained to assist them in an
emergency. Shipboard emergency situations could pose risks to life, health, and safety,
as well as damage to property and the marine environment.
With this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes requiring passenger ship
emergency familiarization for all shipboard personnel on U.S.-flagged passenger ships,
which may prevent the loss of life at sea, reduce the risk of injury, and increase protection
of property and the marine environment. The Coast Guard proposes expanding the
applicability of the existing crowd management training requirement to include ratings
qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention2 on passenger ships.
B. Legal Authority

The Coast Guard adopted these definitions from the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS), 1974, as amended, and codified them in the CFR. 78 FR 77796 (Dec. 24, 2013). See additional
discussion on SOLAS in section IV, Background, of this document.
2.Ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention are: Able Seafarer Deck, Able
Seafarer Engine, Ratings Forming Part of a Navigational Watch, and Ratings Forming Part of an Engineroom Watch.
The legal basis of this proposed rule is title 14 of the United States Code (U.S.C.),
section 102(3), which grants the Coast Guard broad authority to promulgate and enforce
regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States. More specifically, 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 7301 authorizes
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prescribe the
requirements for the credentialing of officers and ratings respectively. The Secretary has
delegated these statutory authorities to the Coast Guard through DHS Delegation No.
00170.1(II)(92)(e), Revision No. 01.4, which generally authorizes the Coast Guard to
determine and establish the experience and professional qualifications required for the
issuance of credentials.
C. Summary of Major Provisions
This proposed rule would make the following changes, which would apply to all
personnel serving on U.S.-flagged passenger ships that carry more than 12 passengers on
international voyages:
(1) Incorporates by reference the 2017 Edition of the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW
Convention), and the Seafarers’ Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW
Code), which include amendments through 2016, in 46 CFR parts 11 and 12. The STCW
Convention and the STCW Code prescribe a five-tiered passenger ship training approach
which is detailed in Section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, in this document.
(2) Adds a new requirement for all shipboard personnel to complete passenger
ship emergency familiarization appropriate to their capacity, duties, and responsibilities
during an emergency before being assigned to shipboard duties. The passenger ship
emergency familiarization requirement applies to all shipboard personnel, including
masters, officers, and ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW
Convention. This familiarization would not require Coast Guard approval in accordance

with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D, and can be conducted on board the ship or at a shorebased location. Mariners or vessel operators should maintain documentation verifying
that personnel have completed the passenger ship emergency familiarization.
(3) Expands the applicability of crowd management training to include ratings
qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention. Crowd management
courses currently require Coast Guard approval and will continue to require Coast Guard
approval. Approved crowd management courses are readily available to mariners.
D. Costs and Benefits
This proposed rule would affect 1,080 personnel (200 officers,44 specified
ratings,3 and 836 personnel) serving on 50 U.S-flagged passenger ships. For each
passenger ship, we assume two individuals serve in each billet, to account for the
rotational nature of shipboard employment. The cost to the regulated industry would be
approximately $375,707, in 2021 dollars, annualized, and $3,374,817 total, discounted at
2 percent. The proposed rule does not create additional costs for the Federal
Government. In addition, this proposed rule would not result in additional costs to obtain
a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) endorsement, because the training requirements
would be verified through presentation of course completion documentation during
shipboard inspections, and not via an MMC endorsement.
The expected benefits of this proposed rule would be the improvement of the
safety of life at sea through increased mariner competence. It would also ensure that
U.S.-flagged passenger ships would not be subject to additional Port State Control (PSC)
requirements in foreign ports.
IV.

Background

Specified rating for this proposed rule means various categories of ordinary seaman, able seaman, and
qualified members of the engine department, issued on MMCs. For the purpose of estimates, specified
ratings are the closest to the ratings qualified under STCW Chapters II, III, and VII.
The STCW Convention establishes minimum standards for training, certification,
and watchkeeping for seafarers. The STCW Convention includes competence
requirements for seafarers to address emergencies on passenger ships. The STCW
Convention applies to personnel engaged on seagoing ships operating seaward of the
boundary line specified in 46 CFR part 7. Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR 10.107
define the boundary line as “mark[ing] the dividing point between internal and offshore
waters for the purposes of several U.S. statutes and, with exceptions, generally follows
the trend of the seaward, highwater shorelines. See 46 CFR part 7 for the specified
boundary line location.
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended
(SOLAS), sets international standards for vessel safety. SOLAS defines “passenger ship”
as any ship carrying more than 12 passengers on an international voyage.4 The Coast
Guard adopted this definition in 46 CFR 11.1103 and 12.903.5 Every ship subject to
SOLAS must maintain a muster list to identify the functions and duties of each
crewmember in an emergency.6 The muster list must also specify the duties assigned to
crewmembers in relation to passengers in case of an emergency. The Coast Guard has an
established program for the credentialing of personnel serving on U.S. vessels that is
governed by domestic statutes in 14 and 46 U.S.C.,7 and in 46 CFR parts 11, 12 and 13.
Through these domestic statutes and regulations, the Coast Guard implements the
provisions of the STCW Convention and the STCW Code. Current regulations in 46
CFR part 11, Subpart K – Officers on a Passenger Ship When on an International
Voyage, detail the crowd management training requirements for masters, officers, and
personnel working onboard U.S.-flagged passenger ships on an international voyage

SOLAS Chapter I, Part A, Regulation 2(f).
78 FR 77796 (Dec. 24, 2013). This definition of “passenger ship” is limited to subpart K of 46 CFR part
11 and subpart I of 46 CFR part 12.
6 SOLAS, Chapter III, Part B, Regulation 37.
7 14 U.S.C. 102(3), 46 U.S.C. §§ 7101, 7306, and 7313.
4
designated on the muster list to assist passengers in emergency situations. Regulations in
46 CFR part 12, Subpart I – Crewmembers on a Passenger Ship on an International
Voyage, detail the requirements for seafarers working on U.S.-flagged passenger ships on
an international voyage who perform duties that involve safety or care for passengers.
These personnel must meet the appropriate requirements of STCW Regulation V/2 and
section A-V/2 of the STCW Code, including safety training, training in crowd
management, crisis management and human behavior, and passenger safety cargo safety
and hull integrity training, and must hold documentary evidence showing they meet those
requirements through approved or accepted training.
On January 13, 2012, the Costa Concordia, an Italian passenger ship operating in
the Mediterranean Sea with 3,206 passengers and 1,023 crewmembers on board, struck a
reef off the Italian coastline. The incident resulted in the loss of 32 lives (27 passengers
and 5 crewmembers), injury to 157 others, and the total loss of the ship. In the ensuing
accident report,8 the Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports concluded that
multiple factors contributed to the injuries and loss of life. Some of these factors
included delayed management of the emergency response and evacuation process,
inconsistencies in assignment of duties, communication issues due to the different
backgrounds of passengers and crewmembers, and passenger confusion over which
personnel employed on passenger ships were trained to assist in an emergency.9
The notable loss of the Costa Concordia provided the rationale for initiating a
review of the passenger ship training provisions in the STCW Convention and the STCW
Code. In 2012, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) considered a proposal submitted by the United States to review and
potentially amend the STCW required training for mariners working on passenger ships,
The Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports, Marine Casualties Investigative Body, Cruise Ship
COSTA CONCORDIA, Marine Casualty on January 13, 2012. This report is available at:
https://www.mitma.gob.es/recursos_mfom/2012costaconcordia.pdf (last visited 6/3/2024).
9 Id at 159.
considering new challenges posed by the increased size of modern cruise ships and the
large number of passengers on board. The MSC tasked the Human Element, Training
and Watchkeeping (HTW) Subcommittee with addressing these challenges.
Recognizing that significant numbers of U.S. passengers travel on foreign-flagged
passenger ships, the United States submitted multiple proposals to the HTW
subcommittee for consideration while developing new training requirements for
personnel on passenger ships. The U.S. submission to the third session of the HTW
subcommittee included a tiered approach to training and familiarization for personnel on
passenger ships, including those providing direct service to passengers, and passenger
ship emergency familiarization. This proposal was used as the basis of the amendments
to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code that were adopted in 2016 and entered
into force on July 1, 2018.10
The amendments to the STCW Convention and Code added passenger ship
emergency familiarization requirements for personnel on passenger ships. They also
expanded the applicability of crowd management training to include ratings qualified
under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention with the current applicability of
masters, officers, and personnel designated on the muster list to assist passengers in
emergency situations.11 The STCW Convention and the STCW Code require that
passenger ship personnel are familiar with safety features, emergency equipment and
procedures, basic communication, and crowd control techniques in order to assist

While the amendments entered into force on July 1, 2018, the STCW Convention is not selfimplementing. The United States must issue regulations to meet its treaty obligations. As such, all
compliance with the 2016 amendments and 2021 policy letter (CG-MMC Policy Letter 02-21, “Guidance
On Voluntary Compliance With Training Requirements For Personnel Serving On U.S.-Flagged Passenger
Ships That Carry More Than 12 Passengers On International Voyages”) has been voluntary in nature. The
Coast Guard does not have information on which operating companies or mariners in the affected
population have taken measures to comply with the 2016 amendments because compliance is voluntary and
not required to be recorded during an annual inspection.
11 IMO Resolution MSC.416(97), Consideration and Adoption of Amendments to Mandatory Instruments,
Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended, and the Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
(STCW) Code, Annex 1, page 4. A copy of this resolution is available in the docket where indicated under
the ADDRESSES portion of this preamble.
passengers, including elderly and disabled individuals, during an emergency.
This proposed rule would codify the STCW Convention and the STCW Code,
including amendments through 2016. As a signatory to the STCW Convention, the
United States must ensure compliance with its treaty obligations through full
implementation of amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code. The
STCW Convention is not self-implementing; therefore, the Coast Guard does not have
discretion and must issue regulations to implement these requirements. Failure to meet
the treaty obligations could cause the United States to lose status on the IMO’s “White
List,” which distinguishes administrations that are in full compliance with the STCW
Convention and the STCW Code. Loss of this status could cause U.S. ships to be subject
to more rigorous PSC inspections in foreign ports, including possible detainment or
denial of entry. Additionally, U.S. mariners could be ineligible to serve on foreignflagged ships.
On August 5, 2021, the Coast Guard’s Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing
(CG-MMC) issued Policy Letter 02-21, “Guidance On Voluntary Compliance With
Training Requirements For Personnel Serving On U.S.-Flagged Passenger Ships That
Carry More Than 12 Passengers On International Voyages”,12 to advise U.S.-flagged
passenger ship operating companies of the amendments to the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code and encourage voluntary compliance. This policy letter will be cancelled
when this proposed rule becomes final and effective.
V.

Discussion of Proposed Rule
In the following paragraphs, we provide a section-by-section description of our

proposed amendments to 46 CFR parts 11 and 12, in section number order with topical

The document is available at:
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/MMC/MMC-Policy-Letter-02-21-Final05AUG21.pdf?ver=8GP3iNQS2pWTD6NG3eDTw%3D%3D#:~:text=This%20policy%20letter%20provides%20guidance,Convention%20and%20the%
20STCW%20Code. (last visited 6/3/2024)
headings.
46 CFR Part 11
Authority Citations
We are deleting reference to 46 U.S.C. 8906, and adding, in its place, 46 U.S.C.
chapter 89. Chapter 89 of 46 U.S.C. contains the authorities for requiring various small
vessel officer endorsements, including the civil penalties (in 46 U.S.C. 8906) for
violating the chapter. We are also updating the reference to DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.4, to reflect the most recent revision of this document.
Subpart A—General
Section 11.102 Incorporation by Reference
The Coast Guard proposes to update the centralized incorporation by reference for
the 2017 Edition of the STCW Convention and the STCW Code, which includes
amendments through 2016. The STCW Convention sets the minimum standards for
training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers. The STCW Code addresses the
technical aspects of the STCW Convention, including minimum standards of competence
and the appropriate methods for demonstrating competence, which includes training.
Currently, regulations in 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, reference the STCW
Convention and the STCW Code, as amended through 2011. Additional amendments to
the STCW Convention and the STCW Code were adopted in 2016 and entered into force
on July 1, 2018.13 These amendments contain updated seafarer training requirements to
address emergencies on passenger ships, prescribing a five-tiered passenger ship training
approach.
The five-tiered approach includes passenger ship emergency familiarization,
safety training for personnel providing direct service to passengers, passenger ship crowd
management, crisis management and human behavior, and passenger safety, cargo safety,

See footnote 9.

and hull integrity training.14 Each tier builds on the previous tier of training, and the
proposed training requirements are structured as appropriate to the associated position of
responsibility on board the ship.
Subpart K-Officers on a Passenger Ship When on an International Voyage
Section 11.1105-General requirements for officer endorsements.
The Coast Guard proposes revising the title of this section from “General
requirements for officer endorsements” to “General requirements.” The proposed change
would align with the purpose of this subpart, in accordance with the STCW Convention
and the STCW Code. Other specific changes to § 11.1105 are detailed below.
In summary, we propose combining existing paragraph (a) introductory text and
text from paragraph (a)(1) into paragraph (a) introductory text; adding new paragraph
(a)(1); redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(i) as (a)(3), (a)(1)(ii) as (a)(2), (a)(1)(iii) as (a)(4)
and (a)(1)(iv) as (a)(5); redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (b); and
redesignating existing paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d) and (e)
respectively. These changes would allow paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) to refer to the
applicable paragraphs (1 through 5) of section A-V/2 of the STCW Code, as detailed in
the following discussion of those paragraphs.
In revised paragraph (a) introductory text, we would change the word “vessel” to
“ship” for consistency in terminology in this part and add the text, “before being assigned
to shipboard duties” for clarity. The language from existing paragraph (a)(1) in revised
paragraph (a) introductory text details the incorporation of the STCW Regulation V/2 and
of section A-V/2 of the STCW Code. Revised paragraph (a) introductory text would
read, “To serve on a passenger ship on international voyages, before being assigned
shipboard duties, masters, deck officers, chief engineers, and engineer officers, must meet

STCW Convention, Regulation V/2 and the STCW Code, Section A-V/2, Mandatory minimum
requirements for the training and qualifications of masters, officers, ratings, and other personnel on
passenger ships.
the appropriate requirements of regulation V/2 of the STCW Convention and of section
A-V/2 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102) as follows:”.
New paragraph (a)(1) would specify that all officers and personnel aboard
passenger ships must have completed passenger ship emergency familiarization
appropriate to their capacity, duties, and responsibilities. Paragraph (a)(1) would refer to
section A-V/2 paragraph 1 of the STCW Code, which requires that passenger ship
emergency familiarization be completed before personnel are assigned to shipboard
duties.
In accordance with section A-V/2 paragraph 1 of the STCW Code, passenger ship
emergency familiarization must include topics to familiarize personnel with the general
safety features aboard the ship, the location of essential safety equipment, including lifesaving appliances, the importance of personal conduct during the implementation of
emergency plans, and restrictions on the use of elevators during emergencies. Passenger
ship emergency familiarization, in accordance with section A-V/2 paragraph 1 of the
STCW Code, also includes the requirement to communicate with passengers during an
emergency, including the ability to communicate in the working language of the ship,
including non-verbally communicating safety information, and understanding one of the
languages in which emergency announcements may be broadcast on the ship during an
emergency or drill.
Passenger ship emergency familiarization proposed in paragraph (a)(1) would not
require Coast Guard approval in accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D, and could
be conducted on board the ship or in a shore-based location. Operating companies would
have to ensure personnel are familiarized with the shipboard layout, their shipboard
duties, and emergency procedures. Personnel or vessel operating companies should
maintain documentary evidence verifying that personnel have completed the Passenger
Ship Emergency Familiarization training. It is the responsibility of the operating

companies, who are obligated by Regulation I/14, “Responsibilities of Companies” of the
STCW Convention, to ensure that documentation relevant to personnel training is
maintained and readily accessible. Port State Control officers or Coast Guard inspectors
may ask to see evidence that personnel have completed passenger ship emergency
familiarization.
Redesignated paragraph (a)(2), which already requires the completion of safety
training for personnel providing direct service to passengers in passenger spaces, would
be revised to include the addition of “officers” to personnel providing direct service to
passengers in passenger spaces. In addition, we would remove “onboard passenger
ships” from the explanation of passenger spaces. We would add “passenger ship” to
more accurately describe the type of safety training required. Paragraph (a)(2) would
refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 2 of the STCW Code, which requires that passenger
ship safety training be completed before personnel are assigned to shipboard duties.
In accordance with section A-V/2 paragraph 2 of the STCW Code, passenger ship
safety training must include communication. Specifically, it must include:
•

The ability to communicate with passengers during an emergency, taking into account
the language or languages appropriate to the principal nationalities of passengers
carried on the particular route;

•

The likelihood that an ability to use elementary English vocabulary for basic
instructions can provide a means of communicating with a passenger in need of
assistance, whether or not the passenger and crew member share a common language;

•

The possible need to communicate during an emergency by some other means, such
as by demonstration, hand signals, or calling attention to the location of instructions,
muster stations, life-saving devices, or evacuation routes when oral communication is
impractical;

•

The extent to which complete safety instructions have been provided to passengers in

their native language or languages;
•

The languages in which emergency announcements may be broadcast during an
emergency or drill to convey critical guidance to passengers and to facilitate crew
members in assisting passengers; and

•

In accordance with section A-V/2 paragraph 2 of the STCW Code, passenger ship
safety training must include life-saving appliances, specifically the ability to
demonstrate to passengers the use of personal life-saving appliances, and embarkation
procedures with special attention to disabled persons and persons needing assistance.
Passenger ship safety training proposed in paragraph (a)(2) would not require

Coast Guard approval in accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D, and could be
conducted on board the ship or in a shore-based location. Personnel completing
passenger ship safety training are obligated to maintain documentary evidence of their
training by Regulation V/2, “Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and
qualification of masters, officers, ratings and other personnel on passenger ships,” of the
STCW Convention.
The Coast Guard would make non-substantive changes in redesignated paragraph
(a)(3), which already requires the completion of crowd management training. In
addition, the Coast Guard would make the following substantive changes to clarify which
personnel are required to complete the required training:
•

The text, “ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention ”
would be added to masters, officers, and personnel designated on muster lists to assist
passengers in emergency situations.

•

The text, “approved or accepted” would be added to clarify that masters, officers,
ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention, and
personnel designated on muster lists to assist passengers in emergency situations must
complete “approved or accepted” training in passenger ship crowd management.

Requiring approved or accepted training aligns with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D,
which allows training to be either approved or accepted by the Coast Guard.
•

The text would be revised to refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 3 of the STCW Code,
which requires crowd management training to be completed in accordance with
STCW regulation V/2, paragraph 7, as set out in table A-V/2-1. Personnel
completing crowd management training are obligated to maintain documentary
evidence of their training by Regulation V/2, “Mandatory minimum requirements for
the training and qualification of masters, officers, ratings and other personnel on
passenger ships,” of the STCW Convention.
Redesignated paragraph (a)(4) would be revised to make one non-substantive

change. Additionally, redesignated paragraph (a)(4), which already includes a
requirement for the completion of crisis management and human behavior, would be
revised to clarify that training in crisis management and human behavior must be
approved “or accepted” training in accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D.
Paragraph (a)(4) would also be revised to refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 4 of the
STCW Code, which requires training in crisis management and human behavior to be
completed in accordance with STCW regulation V/2 paragraph 8, as set out in table AV/2-2. Personnel completing crisis management and human behavior training are
obligated to maintain documentary evidence of their training by Regulation V/2,
“Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualification of masters, officers,
ratings and other personnel on passenger ships,” of the STCW Convention.
Redesignated paragraph (a)(5) would be revised to make one non-substantive
change. Redesignated paragraph (a)(5) would also be revised to clarify that training in
passenger safety, cargo safety, and hull integrity must be approved “or accepted” training
in accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D. Paragraph (a)(5) would also be revised to
refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 5 of the STCW Code, which requires that training must

be completed before personnel are assigned to shipboard duties.
In accordance with section A-V/2 paragraph 5 of the STCW Code, passenger
safety, cargo safety, and hull integrity training must include loading and embarkation
procedures and, specifically, the ability to properly apply the procedures established for
the ship regarding loading and discharging vehicles, rail cars and other cargo transport
units, including related communications; lowering and hoisting ramps; setting up and
stowing retractable vehicle decks; and embarking and disembarking passengers, with
special attention to disabled persons and persons needing assistance.
Passenger safety, cargo safety, and hull integrity training must also include:
•

Carriage of dangerous goods, including the ability to apply any special safeguards,
procedures, and requirements regarding the carriage of dangerous goods on board roro passenger ships;15

•

Securing cargoes, specifically the ability to correctly apply the provisions of the Code
of Safe Practices for Cargo Stowage and Securing (CSS Code)16 to the vehicles, rail
cars, and other cargo transport units carried, and to properly use the cargo-securing
equipment and materials provided, considering their limitations;

•

Stability, trim, and stress calculations, specifically the ability to make proper use of
the stability and stress information provided; calculate stability and trim for different
conditions of loading, using the stability calculators or computer programs provided;
calculate load factors for decks; and calculate the impact of ballast and fuel transfers
on stability, trim, and stress; and

•

Opening, closing and securing hull openings, including the ability to properly apply

A ro-ro, or roll-on/roll-off passenger ship is defined in Chapter II-1, Regulation 2 of SOLAS, as being “a
passenger ship with ro-ro cargo spaces or special category spaces.”
16 The CSS Code provides an international standard for the safe stowage and securing of cargoes to
promote the safety of life both at sea, and during loading and discharge. See
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/CSSCode.aspx#:~:text=All%20cargoes%20should%20be%20stowed,be%20properly%20qualified%20and%20
experienced. (last visited 6/3/2024).
the procedures established for the ship for opening, closing and securing bow, stern
and side doors and ramps; correctly operating the associated systems and conducting
surveys on proper sealing and ro-ro deck atmosphere, including the ability to use
equipment, where carried, to monitor atmosphere in ro-ro spaces and properly apply
the procedures established for the ship for ventilation of ro-ro spaces during lading
and discharging of vehicles, while on voyage and in emergencies.
Personnel completing passenger safety, cargo safety, and hull integrity training
are obligated to maintain documentary evidence of their training by Regulation V/2,
“Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualification of masters, officers,
ratings and other personnel on passenger ships,” of the STCW Convention.
Redesignated paragraph (b) would be revised to state that, “Personnel required to
be trained in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section must hold documentary
evidence of successful completion of training as proof of meeting these requirements.”
These revisions clarify who is required to hold evidence of successful completion of
training in accordance with paragraph (a). We are proposing to remove the existing text,
“through approved or accepted training,” to clarify that the training required in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) would not have to be Coast Guard-approved or accepted
training, while the training required in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) must be Coast
Guard-approved or accepted training.
Redesignated paragraph (c) would be revised to update terminology used in this
subpart and make other non-substantive changes. Paragraph (c) would also be revised to
correct references to other revised paragraphs in this subpart for personnel who must
provide evidence of having maintained the required standard of competence every 5
years.
Redesignated paragraph (d) would be revised to update the paragraph reference,
which was redesignated from paragraph (b) to paragraph (c), and would be revised to

replace the word “sea” with “relevant seagoing” to better describe the service needed to
maintain the standard of competence.
Redesignated paragraph (e) would be revised to replace the word “vessels” with
“ships” to provide consistency of terminology used in this subpart.
46 CFR Part 12
Authority Citations
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the authorities listed for Part 12 by adding 46
U.S.C. sections 7303 through 7316. We are proposing this change to more clearly cite
the statutory authority provided by Congress to promulgate regulations for all
classifications of ratings endorsements with respect to standards of competency, training,
and sea service. We are also updating the reference to DHS Delegation No. 00170.1,
Revision No. 01.4, to reflect the most recent revision of this document.
Subpart A-General
Section 12.103 Incorporation by Reference.
The Coast Guard proposes to redesignate paragraph (b)(1), previously reserved, as
paragraph (b)(2). New paragraph (b)(1) would be added to incorporate by reference the
2017 Edition of the STCW Convention, which includes amendments through 2016.
Redesignated paragraph (b)(2) would reference the 2017 Edition of the STCW Code,
which include all amendments through 2016.17
Subpart I-Ratings and Personnel on a Passenger Ship When on an
International Voyage
The Coast Guard proposes revising the title of this subpart from “Crewmembers
on a Passenger Ship on an International Voyage,” to “Ratings and Personnel on a
Passenger Ship When on an International Voyage.” The proposed change would align

See section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, 46 CFR Part 11, Subpart A, in this document for a
description of the STCW Convention and the STCW Code.
with the purpose of this subpart, in accordance with the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code. We propose making an editorial change to § 12.901; for § 12.905, we
propose combining existing paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) into
paragraph (a) introductory text; redesignating existing paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (b);
adding new paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5); and redesignating existing paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) respectively. Proposed new paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(5) would refer to the applicable paragraphs (1 through 5) of section A-V/2 of
the STCW Code. The specific changes to § 12.905 are detailed below.
Section 12.905-General Requirements.
In revised paragraph (a) introductory text, we would replace the word “vessel”
with “ship” to provide consistency of terminology used in this subpart and revise the text
to clarify when and to whom the requirements apply. We would also move language
from existing paragraph (a)(1) to paragraph (a) introductory text to detail the
incorporation of the STCW Regulation V/2 and of section A-V/2 of the STCW Code.
Revised paragraph (a) introductory text would read, “To serve on a passenger ship on an
international voyage, before being assigned shipboard duties, personnel must meet the
appropriate requirements in STCW Regulation V/2 and Section A-V/2 of the STCW
Code (both incorporated by reference, see § 12.103) as follows:”.
Paragraph (a)(1) would be amended to specify that all personnel must have
completed passenger ship emergency familiarization appropriate to their capacity, duties,
and responsibilities. Paragraph (a)(1) would also refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 1 of
the STCW Code.18 Passenger ship emergency familiarization proposed in paragraph
(a)(1) would not require Coast Guard approval in accordance with 46 CFR part 10,
subpart D, and could be conducted on board the ship or in a shore-based location.

See section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, § 11.1105, in this document for a description of section AV/2 paragraph 1 of the STCW Code.
Paragraph (a)(2) would be redesignated as paragraph (b). New paragraph (a)(2)
would be added to include the requirement that personnel providing direct service to
passengers in passenger spaces must have completed the passenger ship safety training.
Paragraph (a)(2) would also refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 2 of the STCW Code.19
Passenger ship safety training proposed in paragraph (a)(2) would not require Coast
Guard approval in accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D, and could be conducted
on board the ship or in a shore-based location.
Proposed new paragraph (a)(3) would add the requirement that ratings qualified
under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention and personnel designated on the
muster list to assist passengers in an emergency situation onboard passenger ships must
have completed approved or accepted training in passenger ship crowd management.
Passenger ship crowd management training must be approved or accepted training in
accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D. This paragraph would also refer to section
A-V/2 paragraph 3 of the STCW Code.20
Proposed new paragraph (a)(4) would add the requirement that personnel
designated on muster lists as having responsibility for the safety of passengers in
emergency situations onboard passenger ships must have completed approved or
accepted training in crisis management and human behavior. Crisis management and
human behavior training must be approved or accepted training in accordance with 46
CFR part 10, subpart D. This paragraph would also refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 4 of
the STCW Code.21
Proposed new paragraph (a)(5) would add the requirement that personnel assigned
immediate responsibility for embarking and disembarking passengers, loading,

See section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, § 11.1105, in this document for a description of section AV/2 paragraph 2 of the STCW Code.
20 See section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, § 11.1105, in this document for a description of section AV/2 paragraph 3 of the STCW Code.
21 See section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, § 11.1105, in this document for a description of section AV/2 paragraph 4 of the STCW Code.
discharging, or securing cargo, or closing hull openings onboard ro-ro passenger ships
must have completed approved or accepted training in passenger safety, cargo safety, and
hull integrity. Passenger safety, cargo safety, and hull integrity training must be
approved or accepted training in accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D. This
paragraph would also refer to section A-V/2 paragraph 5 of the STCW Code.22
Redesignated paragraph (b) would be revised to require personnel completing the
training described in paragraph (a) to hold documentary evidence of meeting these
requirements.
Redesignated paragraph (c) would be revised to update terminology used in this
subpart and make other non-substantive changes. Paragraph (c) would also be revised to
correct references to other revised paragraphs in this subpart for personnel who must
provide evidence of having maintained the required standard of competence every 5
years.
Redesignated paragraph (d) would be revised to update the paragraph reference
which was redesignated from paragraph (b) to paragraph (c) and would be revised to
replace the word “sea” with “relevant seagoing” to better describe the service needed to
maintain the standard of competence.
VI.

Incorporation by Reference

Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in the proposed
regulatory text for 46 CFR 11.102 and 12.103. The sections that reference these
standards, and the locations and web addresses where these standards are available, are
listed in those sections. The material incorporated by reference is summarized in this
preamble in Section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, under the discussions of §§ 11.102
and 11.1105. For information about how to view this material, see the ADDRESSES

See section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, § 11.1105, in this document for a description of section AV/2 paragraph 5 of the STCW Code.
section of this preamble. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in
the proposed regulatory text for §§ 11.102 and 12.103. Before publishing a binding rule,
we will submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the
incorporation by reference.
Consistent with 1 CFR part 51 incorporation by reference provisions, this material
is reasonably available. Interested persons have access to it through their normal course
of business, may purchase it from the IMO identified in 46 CFR 11.102 or 12.103, or
may view a copy by means we have identified in those sections.
VII.

Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and

Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based on these
statutes or Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing
rules, and promoting flexibility.
Additionally, Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Cooperation,”
promotes the goal of Executive Order 13563. Executive Order 13609 targets
international regulatory cooperation to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements. As discussed in sections IV. Background, and V.
Discussion of Proposed Rule, as a signatory to the STCW Convention, the United States

is required to implement amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code
through national regulations.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A summary of the
proposed rule’s impacts is presented below, and a more detailed discussion on the
estimated costs and benefits of this proposed rule follows.
The proposed rule would make the following changes, which would apply to all
personnel serving on U.S.-flagged passenger ships:
(1) Incorporate by reference the 2017 Edition of the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code, to include amendments through 2016 in 46 CFR parts 11 and 12.
(2) Add a new requirement for all personnel to complete passenger ship
emergency familiarization appropriate to their capacity, duties, and responsibilities
during an emergency. Personnel would have to complete the familiarization before being
assigned to shipboard duties. The passenger ship emergency familiarization requirement
would apply to all personnel, including masters, officers, and ratings qualified under
Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention. This familiarization would not
require Coast Guard approval in accordance with 46 CFR part 10, subpart D, and could
be conducted on board the ship or at a shore-based location. Mariners or ship operators
should maintain documentation verifying that personnel have completed the passenger
ship emergency familiarization.
(3) Expand the applicability of the crowd management training requirement by
adding ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention to the
current applicability of officers and personnel designated on the muster list to assist
passengers in emergency situations. Currently, only masters, officers, and personnel
designated on the muster list to assist passengers on board passenger ships in emergency

situations must complete crowd management training.
The Coast Guard considers the benefits and costs of the proposed rulemaking
against the baseline, which is our best assessment of maritime affairs absent this proposed
action. The Coast Guard does not have data on whether the U.S.-passenger-ship industry
is currently in compliance with the training requirements in this proposal. Pursuant to 46
CFR 1.01-10(f)(1), which authorizes the Coast Guard to supervise the administration of
the manning of U.S. ships, PSC officers and Coast Guard inspectors are currently
verifying that mariners hold the appropriate credentials and have met the training
required by the STCW Convention and the STCW Code , but are not tracking compliance
with the requirements outlined in this proposed rule, since compliance is currently
voluntary.
While the Coast Guard believes it is possible that personnel may have already
completed the required passenger ship trainings before the effective date of this proposed
rule, due to a lack of data, we cannot assume compliance. Thus, for the purposes of this
regulatory analysis, we assume personnel are not in compliance with the proposed
training requirements, and we measure initial compliance costs in the first year of
implementation. As a result, the Coast Guard estimates that the operating companies of
U.S.-flagged passenger ships would incur undiscounted average annual costs of
approximately $352,560, in 2021 dollars, from the passenger ship emergency
familiarization requirements, and ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the
STCW Convention would incur undiscounted average annual costs of $21,185, in 2021
dollars, to comply with the crowd management training requirement. Taken together, the
proposed rule would result in annualized costs to industry of approximately $375,707,
and total costs of $3,374,817, in 2021 dollars, when discounted at 2 percent over a 10year period of analysis. The Coast Guard believes the proposed rule would improve
safety of life at sea by ensuring passenger ship personnel are equipped to assist

passengers in an emergency and would also maintain the ability of passenger ships and
mariners to operate in international markets. Table 1 provides a summary of the
proposed rule’s applicability, affected population, potential costs, and benefits.
Table 1: Summary of the Proposed Rule’s Impacts
Category
Applicability
Affected
Population

Cost Impacts

Unquantified
Benefits

Summary
The proposed rule would apply to personnel serving
on U.S.-flagged passenger ships that carry more than
12 passengers on international voyages.
The proposed rule creates costs for 37 operating
companies employing 1,080 mariners and other
personnel and for 44 specified ratings serving on 50
U.S.-flagged passenger ships.
Operating companies would incur undiscounted
average annual costs of approximately $352,560 in
2021 dollars, from the passenger ship emergency
familiarization requirements. Personnel with ratings
qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW
Convention would incur undiscounted average annual
costs of approximately $21,185, in 2021 dollars, in
tuition, travel expenses, opportunity cost, and per diem
to comply with the crowd management training
requirements. Taken together, the proposed rule results
in annualized costs to industry of approximately
$375,707 and total costs of approximately $3,374,817
in 2021 dollars, when discounted at 2 percent over a
10-year period of analysis.
This proposed rule creates no new costs for
Government.
The proposed rule aligns U.S. regulations with
international standards and ensures the U.S. retains its
status on the IMO’s “White List” which ensures that
U.S.-flagged passenger ships avoid potential
detainment or denial of entry in foreign ports and U.S.
This ensures U.S.-flagged vessels and mariners retain
the ability to operate in international markets.
The proposed rule promotes international
harmonization and reciprocity of maritime regulations
between the U.S. and countries where the affected
ships in this proposed rule may operate. This
reciprocity promotes the safety of U.S. passengers
who disproportionately cruise on foreign-flagged
ships.
The proposed rule promotes the safety of life at sea in
the case of an emergency which may prevent the loss

of life, reduce the risk of injury, and increase
protection of property in the marine environment.
Description of Regulatory Changes
This proposed rule would result in multiple changes that have costs. First, the
proposed rule would add passenger ship emergency familiarization requirements for
officers, ratings, and personnel on passenger ships making international voyages. This
training includes topics to familiarize personnel with the general safety features aboard
the ship, the location of essential safety equipment, including life-saving appliances, the
importance of personal conduct during the implementation of emergency plans, and
restrictions on the use of elevators during emergencies. Passenger ship emergency
familiarization also includes the requirement to communicate with passengers during an
emergency, including the ability to communicate in the working language of the ship,
including non-verbally communicating safety information, and understanding one of the
languages in which emergency announcements may be broadcast on the ship during an
emergency or drill. Second, the proposed rule would expand the applicability of crowd
management training by requiring ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the
STCW Convention to complete this training. Currently, only officers and personnel
designated on the muster list to assist passengers in emergency situations are required to
complete this training. Table 2 lists and describes the changes we propose to make to 46
CFR parts 11 and 12, with their associated impacts.

Table 2: Proposed Changes to 46 CFR Parts 11 and 12
Section

Part 11

11.102(a)

Description of Change
Proposed Revisions to 46 CFR Part 11
Revises the authorities listed for
Part 11 by removing extraneous
references related to Executive
Order 10173 and updates the
reference to DHS Delegation
No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4,
to reflect the most recent
revision of this document.
Edits paragraph (a) to remove
CG-MMC and National
Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) phone
numbers, as well as update the
NARA website URL.

Impact

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

11.102(b)

Edits paragraph (b) introductory
text to add IMO phone number,
email, and website.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

11.102(b)(1)
11.102(b)(2)

Amends paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) to update the
incorporation by reference of the
STCW Convention, 2017
Edition, and specifies the
paragraphs in 46 CFR part 11
affected by these amendments.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

11.305
11.307
11.309
11.311
11.313
11.315
11.317
11.319
11.321
11.325
11.327
11.331
11.333

Amends footnote 2 in Table 1 of
each impacted section to add
reference to the appropriate
section of the STCW Code.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

11.329

Renumbers footnotes associated
with Table 1 for greater
consistency with other sections,
and amends footnote 2 in Table
1 of this section to add reference

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

to the appropriate section of the
STCW Code.

11.1105

Removes the term “for officer
endorsements” from the title to
reflect that the Coast Guard does
not issue endorsements in
accordance with any of the
requirements in this subpart.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

11.1105(a)

Merges paragraph (a)(1) into
paragraph (a) introductory text.
Replaces the word “vessel” with
“ship” for consistency with the
terminology used in this subpart,
adds the text “before being
assigned shipboard duties” and
deletes the text “of this part” for
clarity.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

Amends paragraph (a)(1) to add
a new requirement for officers
and personnel to complete a
passenger ship emergency
familiarization. Paragraph
(a)(1)(i) is revised and
redesignated as new paragraph
(a)(3) to retain the requirement
for crowd management training.

This change would create
new costs and benefits.
Operating companies would
incur initial-year costs of
$390,941 (in undiscounted
2021 dollars) to comply with
passenger ship emergency
familiarization requirements.
Affects 200 officers, 44
specified ratings, and 836
personnel serving on 50 U.S.flagged passenger ships, with
numbers declining in
subsequent years due to ships
exiting the industry. Benefits

11.1105(a)(1)

include enhanced passenger
safety at sea in the case of an
emergency which may
prevent the loss of life,
reduce the risk of injury, and
increase protection of
property in the marine
environment. It also increases
international harmonization
of maritime regulation and
allows the U.S. to maintain
its status on the IMO’s
“White List”.

11.1105(a)(2)

Continues renumbering of
paragraphs in section 11.1105
for consistency with paragraph
numbering in the STCW Code,
and further clarifies that officers
and personnel are required to
comply with the STCW Code’s
training requirements.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

11.1105(a)(3)

Paragraph (a)(1)(i) is
redesignated as paragraph (a)(3)
to retain the requirement for
crowd management training.
Revisions include adding that
training may be accepted, and
adding “ratings qualified under
Chapters II, III, and VII of the
STCW Convention” as affected
mariners to harmonize with
changes in 46 CFR Part 12.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings since it is a revision
of an existing requirement.
The new costs associated
with expanding crowd
management training
requirement to ratings
qualified under Chapters II,
III, and VII of the STCW
Convention will be reflected
in the changes to 46 CFR Part
12.

Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) is
redesignated as paragraph (a)(4)
and paragraph (a)(1)(iv) is
redesignated as paragraph (a)(5)
to continue renumbering of
paragraphs in section 11.1105
for consistency with the format
of the five-tiered approach to
training in the STCW Code and
corresponding paragraph
numbering to improve

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

11.1105(a)(4)
11.1105(a)(5)

11.1105(b)
11.1105(c)
11.1105(d)
11.1105(e)

Part 12

12.103(a)

12.103(b)

12.103(b)(1)

readability for readers familiar
with the STCW Code .
Paragraph (a)(2) is redesignated
as paragraph (b), redesignates
paragraph (b) as paragraph (c),
redesignates paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d), and redesignates
paragraph (d) as paragraph (e).
All are revised to reference the
appropriate paragraph detailing
training or evidence of training.
Paragraph (d) deletes “sea” and
adds “relevant seagoing” for
consistency. Paragraph (e)
changes “vessels” to “ships” and
adds “Convention” after
“STCW” for greater consistency
with the terminology used in
this subpart.
Proposed Revisions to 46 CFR Part 12
Revises the authorities listed for
Part 12 by adding additional
sections from 46 U.S.C. 73037316 to more clearly cite the
statutory authority provided by
Congress, and updates the
reference to DHS Delegation
No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4,
to reflect the most recent
revision of this document.
Edits paragraph (a) to remove
CG-MMC and NARA phone
numbers, as well as update the
NARA website URL and email.
Edits paragraph (b) introductory
text to add IMO phone number,
email, and website.
Redesignates paragraph (b)(1)
as paragraph (b)(2) and adds a
new paragraph (b)(1) to
incorporate by reference the
STCW Convention, 2017
Edition.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.
This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.
This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

12.103(b)(2)

12.603

12.605
12.609
12.611

12.901

12.905(a)

12.905(a)(1)

Amends redesignated paragraph
(b)(2) to update the
incorporation by reference of the
STCW Code, 2017 Edition, and
updates the sections and
paragraphs in 46 CFR Part 12
affected by these amendments.
Amends footnotes 2 and 3 in
Table 1 to § 12.3603(d) to add
reference to the appropriate
sections of the STCW Code.

Amends footnote 2 in Table 1 to
§ 12.3605(c), § 12.3609(c), and §
12.3611(c) to add reference to the
appropriate sections of the STCW
Code.

Revises the title of subpart I to
better reflect the purpose of the
subpart in accordance with the
STCW Code. Changes the text
“part” to “subpart” for
consistency.
Moves text from paragraph
(a)(1) into paragraph (a)
introductory text. Replaces the
word “vessel” with “ship” for
consistency with terminology
used in this subpart and revises
the text to specify when and to
whom the requirements apply.

Amends paragraph (a)(1) to add
a requirement for all personnel
to complete passenger ship
emergency familiarization.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.
This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.
This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This change would create
new costs and benefits. 37
operating companies would
incur initial-year costs of
$390,941 (in undiscounted
2021 dollars) to achieve
compliance with passenger
ship emergency
familiarization requirements.
Affects 200 officers, 44
ratings, and 836 personnel
serving on 50 U.S.-flagged
passenger ships, with
numbers declining in
subsequent years due to ships
exiting the industry. Benefits

include enhanced passenger
safety at sea in the case of an
emergency which may
prevent the loss of life,
reduce the risk of injury, and
increase protection of
property in the marine
environment. It also increases
international harmonization
of maritime regulation and
allows the U.S. to maintain
its status on the IMO’s
“White List”.

12.905(a)(2)

12.905(a)(3)

Redesignates paragraph (a)(2) as
paragraph (b). Adds new
paragraph (a)(2) to specify that
personnel providing direct
service to passengers in
passenger spaces must complete
passenger ship safety training
specified in section A-V/2
paragraph 2 of the STCW Code.
This was an existing
requirement but is now being
specified for greater clarity and
consistency with the five-tiered
approach to training in the
STCW Code.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

Adds new paragraph (a)(3) to
require ratings qualified under
Chapters II, III, and VII of the
STCW Convention and
personnel designated on the
muster list to assist passengers
in emergency situations to
complete crowd management
training.

This change would create
new costs and benefits.
Ratings qualified under
Chapters II, III, and VII of
the STCW Convention would
incur average annual costs of
$21,185 (in undiscounted
2021 dollars). More
specifically, we estimate
ratings will incur $65,185 (in
undiscounted 2021 dollars) in
the first year to comply with
crowd management training
requirements and then incur
an average of $16,296 (in
undiscounted 2021 dollars) in
annually recurring costs to
train new ratings due to

turnovers. Affects 44
specified ratings serving on
50 U.S.-flagged passenger
ships in the first year of
implementation, with
decreasing numbers every
year after. See table 3 for
details on turnovers. Benefits
include enhanced passenger
safety at sea in the case of an
emergency which may
prevent the loss of life,
reduce the risk of injury, and
increase protection of
property in the marine
environment. It also increases
international harmonization
of maritime regulation and
allows the U.S. to maintain
its status on the IMO’s
“White List”. In addition, this
ensures U.S. mariners meet
international standards and
maintain their ability to serve
on foreign-flagged ships.

12.905(a)(4)

12.905(a)(5)

Adds new paragraph (a)(4) to
specify that personnel
designated on the muster list as
having responsibility for the
safety of passengers in
emergency situations must
complete training in crisis
management and human
behavior. This was an existing
requirement but is now being
specified for greater clarity and
consistency with the five-tiered
approach to training in the
STCW Code.
Adds new paragraph (a)(5) to
specify that personnel assigned
immediate responsibility for
embarking and disembarking
passengers, loading,
discharging, or securing cargo,
or closing hull openings onboard

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

12.905(b)

12.905(c)
12.905(d)
12.905(e)

ro-ro passenger ships must
complete training in passenger
safety, cargo safety, and hull
integrity. This was an existing
requirement but is now being
specified for greater clarity and
consistency with the five-tiered
approach to training in the
STCW Code.
Redesignates paragraph (a)(2) as
paragraph (b) and revises text of
paragraph (b) to clarify that
personnel must retain
documentary evidence of
training completion. This was an
existing requirement but is now
being specified for greater
clarity and consistency with the
STCW Code.
Redesignates paragraph (b) as
paragraph (c), redesignates
paragraph (c) as paragraph (d),
redesignates paragraph (d) to
paragraph (e), and revises text to
reference the correct paragraphs
outlining training requirements
and evidence of training.
Paragraph (d) is updated to
remove “sea” and add “relevant
seagoing” for consistency.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

This editorial change would
not impose any costs or cost
savings.

Affected Population
This proposed rule would have two affected populations that would incur costs:
(1) operating companies with U.S.-flagged passenger ships; and (2) ratings qualified
under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention serving on the same ships.
The Coast Guard analyzed data from the Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database to determine the number of U.S.-flagged passenger ships
that carry more than 12 passengers on international voyages and to determine the number
of unique owners and operators.23 We determined that there are 50 U.S.-flagged
passenger ships owned by 37 operating companies that would incur the costs of providing
passenger ship emergency familiarization to the officers, ratings, and personnel aboard
their ships. Unlike most STCW Convention and STCW Code training requirements, it
would be incumbent upon the owners and operators of these passenger ships to provide
this training, since it is ship-specific and is given on board prior to assuming duties.
To determine the number of officers, ratings, and personnel impacted by the
proposed passenger ship emergency familiarization requirements, as well as the number
of ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention who would
be subject to the proposed crowd management training requirements, the Coast Guard
used additional data from the MISLE database.24 The Coast Guard reviewed the
certificate of inspection for all 50 U.S.-flagged passenger ships in the affected ship
population and reviewed the manning requirements for each ship 25. Accordingly, we
determined that 1,080 personnel [(100 officers + 22 specified ratings + 418 additional
personnel) × 2 mariners per ship] would be subject to the proposed training

The Coast Guard used MISLE to provide data on all active (inspected by definition) U.S.-flagged
passenger vessels that carry over 12 passengers on international voyages as defined by their SOLAS
certification and route type.
24 MISLE was accessed on September 9, 2021.
25 According to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Part F: Manning of Vessels, manning requirements refer to
requirements generally for the number of individuals required, qualifications and conditions of
employment, and duties; for masters and other licenses and registered individuals; for pilots; for unlicensed
personnel; for small vessels; for tank vessels; and for pilotage on the Great Lakes.
requirements.26 Specifically, the passenger ship emergency familiarization requirement
would affect 1,080 personnel (200 officers + 44 specified ratings + 836 personnel), and
the expanded applicability of crowd management training requirements would affect the
44 ratings. See table 3.
Table 3: Counts of Mariners in the Affected Population

Crew 1
Crew 2
Total

Number of
Officers
100
100
Number of Specified Number of Additional
Ratings
Personnel
22
418
22
418
44
Total
Mariners
540
540
Additionally, we utilized historical ship population data from 2012 to 2021 to
estimate growth rates within the industry, and subsequent changes to the ship and mariner
population into the future. After examining the changes in ship population over time, the
Coast Guard determined that the population of U.S.-flagged passenger ships is facing a
gradual decline despite apparent growth in the foreign-flagged fleet. While linear growth
rates are typically preferred, we determined that a linear decline that would eventually
reach zero is an unrealistic picture of the changing dynamics of the ship population.
Instead, a logarithmic decline that gradually levels off according to the formula for the
trend line y = -10.93ln(x) + 70.614 more accurately portrays the industry because
logarithmic functions are best used to project slow rates of decline, and trend towards a
number without reaching zero. This rate of decline is reflected in Figure 1. However, for
the purposes of this analysis, we estimate that the U.S.-flagged ship population will
decrease by one ship each year, which is the closest whole number to the average annual
change in population over the next 10 years of analysis. Therefore, we estimate that the

For each passenger ship, we assume two individuals to serve in each billet, to account for the rotational
nature of shipboard employment.
continuous decrease in the affected mariner population is equivalent to the manning
requirements of a ship exiting service each year.
Figure 1: Logarithmic Rate of Ship Population Decline

Logarithmic Rate of Ship Population Decline
Number of Vessels

70
y = -10.93ln(x) + 70.614

50
40
30
20
10
2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Next, we reviewed the manning requirements for the 50 U.S.-flagged passenger
ships to derive the average manning requirement and thereby estimate the decrease in
mariners and personnel each year. The affected population of 50 U.S.-flagged passenger
ships is comprised of 3 categories of ships: 3 passenger vessels of 100 or more gross tons
(46 CFR Subchapter H), 9 small passenger vessels of less than 100 gross tons carrying
more than 150 passengers or with overnight accommodations for more than 49
passengers (46 CFR Subchapter K), and 38 small passenger vessels of less than 100 gross
tons (46 CFR Subchapter T). The average crew size for each of the categories of vessels
and the entire population is displayed in Table 4.
Table 4: Average Counts of Mariners by Category of Passenger Vessel in the
Affected Population
Vessel category
Average Officers
Passenger Vessels of 100
8
or More Gross Tons
Passenger Vessels
Carrying More Than 150
3
Passengers or With
Overnight

Average Ratings

Average Additional Personnel

40

20

Accommodations for
More Than 49 Passengers
Passenger Vessels of Less
Than 100 Gross Tons
Total (Across Entire
Population)27

0

2

8

Based on this data, the Coast Guard estimates that the average ship in the
population carries 11 mariners (2 officers, 1specified rating, and 8 personnel) and
operates with 2 crews that would be subject to the proposed requirements. The Coast
Guard assumes that, as ships subject to the proposed requirements exit the fleet, mariners
will have less opportunity to serve aboard these ships and leave the affected population.
Because we do not know which category of vessel may exit the affected population in a
given year, we elect to use the overall population average rather than the specific
estimates for the subcategories of ships to account for mariner exit in the affected
population. We believe that, since the majority of the affected population is made up of
smaller ships (38 of the 50 affected ships), this overall average which tends toward a
smaller ship is most representative. Therefore, we estimate that each exiting ship would
result in 22 fewer personnel subject to the proposed training requirements (4 officers, 2
specified ratings, and 16 personnel across 2 crews). The Coast Guard requests comments
on the accuracy of our assumptions related to ship and mariner exit.
Mariner Turnover
In any given year, there will be turnover in the mariner population and some
credentialed mariners will choose to exit the industry. The turnover rate is the number of
mariners who leave the industry and will need to be replaced by mariners with an MMC.
Because the Coast Guard does not issue passenger ship endorsements, we cannot estimate
the turnover rate from existing data. Instead, the Coast Guard uses the turnover rate
derived for the “Persons in Charge of Fuel Transfers” final rule (PIC rule), published on

These totals are calculated from the full affected population of vessels. For example, 200 officers
divided by 50 ships leads to an average of 2 officers per ship.
May 27, 2020 (85 FR 31677) as an approximation for the turnover rate for this rule.28 In
that rule, the Coast Guard estimated that, in any given year, 32.55 percent of the
population that was eligible to renew a specific MMC endorsement would not do so.
The PIC rule utilized data from the National Maritime Center (NMC) for
individuals obtaining MMCs with issue dates from April 2009 to March 2020 and
expiration dates from August 2009 to March 2025. In the data from NMC, every MMC
issued and every mariner has a unique identifying number such that sorting by mariner
reference number shows all the MMCs for that mariner. We then cleaned the data and
applied a formula that marks each MMC as either renewed, not renewed, or ineligible to
renew. We marked any MMC with an expiration date after July 18, 2019 (when the data
was downloaded) as ineligible to renew. Otherwise, we assumed an MMC is renewed if
the issue date is within 2,190 days of the previous MMC's issue date. The period of
2,190 days is equivalent to 6 years (6 years × 365 days in a standard calendar year),
which represents the validity period of 5 years plus a year-long grace period wherein a
mariner cannot use the expiring MMC but could renew that MMC without having to
retake the required formal training from the beginning. If there was no new MMC issued
by March 2015, we assumed that the mariner left the marine industry or otherwise no
longer requires an MMC (turned over) in 2015. We then tabulated how many MMCs in
each calendar year were eligible to renew, how many of those eligible were renewed, and
how many of those eligible were not renewed to produce a turnover percentage as
discussed. The PIC rule utilized a 3-year average of turnover rates to arrive at the
calculated turnover rate. This rate assumes that any mariner lost to turnover in a given
year is replaced by a mariner with an original MMC, in order to maintain a stable
population of mariners able to serve the total population of vessels. We believe this

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/27/2020-11366/person-in-charge-of-fuel-transfers
(last visited 3/15/2024).
turnover rate is a good approximation for the turnover rate in our population, because the
MMC endorsement in the PIC rule has similar requirements for qualification, including
similar prerequisites such as Basic and Advanced Firefighting training. The Coast Guard
requests comments on the accuracy of our assumption that the estimated PIC turnover
rate is similar to the passenger ship turnover rate.
Therefore, in a similar manner, for this proposed rule, we assume that any mariner
lost to annual turnover would be replaced by a mariner with the same credentials at this
rate. This methodology ensures a stable population of mariners able to serve the total
population of active ships. Because we propose, in part 12.905(d), that the standard of
competence in crowd management can be maintained through evidence of 1 year of sea
service within the last 5 years, employing this turnover rate allows us to capture the
number of new ratings entering service who would require crowd management training.
This turnover rate is applied only to ratings, because this group of mariners can be
replaced by those who have a newly issued original MMC, as noted above, and will be
required to complete this training.
Together, in subsequent years, we expect to see decreasing numbers of mariners
seeking to meet the proposed requirements of this rule. Table 5 outlines the number of
officers, ratings, and personnel we estimate would be required to complete passenger ship
emergency familiarization and crowd management training over the next 10 years of
analysis.
Table 5: Mariners Needing Passenger Ship Emergency Familiarization and Crowd
Management Trainings due to Turnover and Ship Population Decline

Year

Officers in
Population29
(a)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
200
196
192
188
184
180
176
172
168
Ratings in
Population30
(b)

Personnel in
Population31
(c)

Number of
Personnel
Needing
Passenger Ship
Emergency
Familiarization
each Year
(d) = (a + b + c)

836
820
804
788
772
756
740
724
708
1,080
1,058
1,036
1,014
992
970
948
926
904
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
Number of
Ratings
Seeking
Crowd
Management
Training due
to
Turnovers32
(e) =
(b)×32.55%
44
14
13
12
12
11
10
10
9
Columns (a), (b), and (c) describe the decrease in overall mariner population each
year due to ships being retired from service, estimated at approximately one ship per
year. Column (d) provides a running total of personnel who will be required to take
passenger ship emergency familiarization each year before assuming shipboard duties.
Finally, column (e) describes the total number of ratings who would seek crowd
management training due to turnover within the mariner population. Since we assume
that mariners are currently not in compliance with the Section A-V/2 of the STCW Code,
the total is the full population of ratings in year 1, with only new ratings completing
training due to turnover in subsequent years.

Officers in population values are equal to the previous row value minus 4 (2 officers each across 2 crews)
as a result of 1 vessel exiting the industry each year.
30 Ratings in population values are equal to the previous row value minus 2 (1 ratings each across 2 crews)
as a result of 1 vessel exiting the industry each year.
31 Personnel in population values are equal to the previous row value minus 16 (8 personnel each across 2
crews) as a result of 1 vessel exiting the industry each year.
32 Rounded to the nearest whole number. The first row in this column is an exception and should not be
calculated with the provided (e) = (b) × 32.55% formula because all ratings would need to seek crowd
management training in the first year of analysis.
Costs
The Coast Guard has considered the additional costs of the proposed rulemaking
against the baseline. Specifically, we have considered whether there are compliance
costs to operating companies and personnel aboard the ships, as well as enforcement
costs to the Federal government associated with the proposed rulemaking.
First, the proposed rule would add passenger ship emergency familiarization
requirements for officers, ratings, and personnel on passenger ships making international
voyages. These costs would be incurred by operating companies in the ship population.
Second, the proposed rule would expand the applicability of crowd management training
by requiring ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention to
complete this training. Currently, only officers and personnel designated on the muster
list to assist passengers in emergency situations are required to complete this training.
The Coast Guard believes that there may be existing ratings qualified under Chapters II,
III, and VII of the STCW Convention with duties on the muster list, which already
requires them to complete crowd management training. However, for the purposes of our
analysis, due to a lack of data, we assume that all qualified ratings in the affected
population would need to complete crowd management for the first time as a result of
this proposed rule. The Coast Guard requests comment on the validity of this
assumption.
While these changes to training requirements would create new costs for
operating companies and ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW
Convention, the Coast Guard does not anticipate that this rulemaking would create added
enforcement costs to the Federal government. We estimate that Coast Guard inspectors
currently need 5-10 minutes to verify training documents during a PSC inspection, and
that this proposal would not add to the time and resources expended under the current
requirements.

Passenger Ship Emergency Familiarization and Crowd Management Trainings
The proposed rule would require officers, ratings, and personnel to complete the
passenger ship emergency familiarization and expand the applicability of crowd
management training to include ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the
STCW Convention. Discussions with subject matter experts (SMEs) from CG-MMC and
personnel at local Coast Guard inspections offices reveal that we are currently unable to
determine whether the U.S. passenger ship industry is in compliance with the training
requirements of the STCW Convention because compliance is voluntary and not required
to be recorded during an inspection. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, we
assume that everyone in the affected population would need to comply with the proposed
passenger ship emergency familiarization and crowd management training requirements.
We request public comment as to the actual percentage of the affected population that is
in compliance with the 2016 training requirements.
The following section estimates the initial first-year compliance costs and the
future recurring compliance costs associated with the proposed rulemaking.
Cost of Passenger Ship Emergency Familiarization
Passenger ship emergency familiarization is conducted on board when personnel
report for duty and would include topics to familiarize personnel with the general safety
features aboard the ship, the location of essential safety equipment, including life-saving
appliances, the importance of personal conduct during the implementation of emergency
plans, and restrictions on the use of elevators during emergencies. Passenger ship
emergency familiarization also includes the requirement to communicate with passengers
during an emergency, including the ability to communicate in the working language of
the ship, including non-verbally communicating safety information, and understanding
one of the languages in which emergency announcements may be broadcast on the ship
during an emergency or drill. Because this training is ship-specific and given before

personnel are assigned to shipboard duties, we assume that operating companies incur the
costs of these required trainings. Costs are based on the opportunity cost of time of
personnel required to complete the training.
The Coast Guard assumes that a mariner serving at management level aboard the
ship gives the familiarization training to crewmembers. According to 46 CFR 10.107,
management level refers to the level of responsibility associated with (1) serving as
master, chief mate, chief engineer officer or second engineer officer onboard a seagoing
ship; and (2) ensuring that all functions within the designated area of responsibility are
properly performed. We believe mariners at this level to be most qualified to provide this
training, given that this training is meant to be specific to the ship on which the mariners
serve. The Coast Guard requests comment on this assumption and whether another
individual would be more likely to provide this training.
Based on input from SMEs and Coast Guard inspectors from local offices with
oversight in the operating areas of the ships, the Coast Guard estimates that this training
requires 4 hours per individual. In addition, we assume that it requires half this time, or 2
hours, for a management level officer to prepare to deliver the training. We make this
assumption as they are responsible for shipboard management and familiar with the areas
required to be included in the passenger ship emergency familiarization training. Given
the relatively small size of the average ship in the affected population and the shipspecific knowledge of the management level officers on board, we assume that 2 hours
would be sufficient development and preparation time for both initial and subsequent
training offerings. The Coast Guard requests comment on the accuracy of our
assumptions related to the time to prepare for and deliver passenger ship emergency
familiarization training.
To compute the opportunity cost of time of the affected population to complete
passenger ship emergency familiarization training, we use the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics’ (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics occupational series, “53-5021
Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels,” under North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) 483100 - Deep Sea, Coastal, and Great Lakes Water
Transportation to estimate the hourly mean wage rate for officers, which is $46.02 in
2021 dollars.33 Similarly, we use BLS occupational series, “53-5011 Sailors and Marine
Oilers,” to estimate the mean wage rate for ratings, which is $28.07 in 2021 dollars.34
Finally, we use “53-6061 Passenger Attendants” to estimate the mean wage rate for
personnel, which is $24.26 in 2021 dollars.35
Next, we apply a load factor to these wage rates to determine the total
compensation of officers, ratings, and personnel more accurately. We calculate a load
factor of 1.48 (1.4756 rounded up) from the BLS’s Employer Costs of Employee
Compensation December 2021 release.36 We then multiply the hourly wage rates by this
load factor. Therefore, we find the loaded hourly wage rate of an officer is $68.11
($46.02 × 1.48), the loaded hourly wage rate of a rating is $41.54 ($28.07 × 1.48), and
the loaded hourly wage rate of personnel is $35.90 ($24.26 × 1.48).
Because all personnel must receive this training each time they report for duty, we
assume that the training would be delivered to the entire population of personnel each
year. In addition, we assume that this new training will be delivered at a quarterly
frequency on average, in line with other trainings required for mariners serving on
Subchapter T and K vessels according to CFR 46 § 185.420 and § 122.420, respectively.
This means that, in the first year, 200 officers, 44 specified ratings, and 836 personnel

https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes535021.htm (last visited 6/3/2024)
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes535011.htm (last visited 6/3/2024)
35 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes536061.htm (last visited 6/3/2024)
36 We obtained a total compensation estimate of $33.57 and the wages and salaries estimate of $22.75 for
private industry workers for the transportation and material moving occupational group from Table 4 of the
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – December 2021 release at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03182022.pdf (last visited 6/3/2024). This allowed us to
determine a load factor of 1.475 ($33.47/$22.75) that we could apply to the mean hourly wage rate to
obtain an estimate for total compensation for an officer and rating.
33
across 2 crews (assuming each crew serves 6 months on average) would need to take this
training twice, for a total of 8 training hours per mariner. Additionally, 1 management
level officer would need to prepare to deliver the training and document completion of
the training for personnel aboard their ship twice for each crew, meaning 100 officers (1
officer delivering the training twice for each crew across 50 ships) would need to spend 4
hours preparing to deliver the training in the first year, 0.166 hours (10 minutes) of which
would be used to document training completion. The Coast Guard requests comment on
the accuracy of our assumptions surrounding the frequency of this training.
Therefore, in the first year of implementation, we estimate that operating
companies would incur costs of $390,941 in undiscounted 2021 dollars, rounded. This is
the sum of 200 officers taking the training twice for a total of 8 hours at a loaded wage
rate of $68.11 (200 x 8 × $68.11 = $108,976), 44 specified ratings taking the training
twice for a total of 8 hours at a loaded wage rate of $41.54 (44 × 8 × $41.54 =
$14,622.08), 836 personnel taking the training twice for a total of 8 hours at a loaded
wage rate of $35.90 (836 × 8 × $35.90 = $240,099.20), and 100 officers preparing to
deliver and document completion of the training twice for a total of 4 hours at a loaded
wage rate of $68.11 (100 × 4 × $68.11 = $27,244.
Costs to the population of operating companies would decrease over time as ships
exit the industry at an estimated rate of one per year. The Coast Guard estimates that the
average ship in the population carries 11 mariners (2 officers, 1 specified rating, and 8
personnel) and operates with 2 crews that would be subject to the proposed requirements.
The Coast Guard assumes that, as ships subject to the proposed requirements exit the
fleet, mariners serving on those ships would also exit the affected population and would
no longer be subject to the proposed training requirements. Therefore, we estimate that
each exiting ship would result in 22 fewer personnel subject to the proposed training
requirements (4 officers, 2 specified ratings, and 16 personnel), and this is reflected in the

calculations. Over the 10 years of analysis, we estimate that operating companies would
incur average annual costs of $352,560 and total costs of $3,525,602, in undiscounted
2021 dollars. Table 6 describes the cost impacts of the passenger ship emergency
familiarization requirements over the next 10 years of analysis.

Table 6: Undiscounted Costs of the Passenger Ship Emergency Familiarization
Requirement Over 10 Years of Analysis

Officers
Giving
Training
(a)
Officers
Taking
Training
(b)
Ratings
Taking
Training
(c)37
Personnel
Taking
Training
(d)
Officer
Loaded
Wage
(e)
$68.11

Rating
Loaded
Wage
(f)
$41.54

Personnel
Loaded
Wage
(g)
$35.90

Hours to
Take
Training
(h)
Hours to
Prepare
and
Document
Training
(i)
2

196

820

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$382,412

96

40

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$373,883

94

38

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$365,354

92

36

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$356,825

90

34

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$348,296

88

32

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$339,767

86

30

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$331,237

84

28

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$322,708

82

26

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$314,179
$352,560

Year

Average
10-Year
Total

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The 32.55 percent turnover rate for ratings discussed in the mariner turnover section is not reflected here
because the emergency familiarization training will be given each year when reporting for duty. Except for
those mariners leaving the population due to ships exiting the market, we assume that the number of ratings
will be constant each year in order to fully meet the manning requirements of the ships remaining in the
affected population.
Total Cost
(j) = [(a×e×i) + (b×e×h)
+ (c×f×h) + (d×g×h)
$390,941

$3,525,602

Cost of the Crowd Management Trainings
The crowd management training requirement would apply to the 44 specified
ratings across 2 crews in the affected mariner population for the first year of
implementation. In subsequent years, only a fraction of the mariner population would
need to seek crowd management training, due to a declining ship population and
employee turnover.38 The cost of attending a crowd management course includes tuition,
travel expenses, opportunity cost of time, and meal and incidental expenses (M&IE),
which would be incurred by the affected ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII
of the STCW Convention.
(a) Tuition and Opportunity Cost of Attendance
There are currently approximately 25 Coast Guard-approved training providers
offering crowd management training. Because crowd management is an existing training
requirement, we do not assume any new costs to training providers to develop crowd
management courses and obtain Coast Guard approval of these courses. The websites of
seven training centers provide detailed information on the length and tuition for the
course. According to this data, the duration of a crowd management course ranges from
4 to 8 hours to complete, for an average of 5.17 hours. As a result, we estimate that
ratings would take 1 day, on average, to complete the course. Tuition ranges from $90 to
$400, for an average cost of $219. Table 7 provides an overview of the available crowd
management courses with associated costs and hours, while table 8 describes the
estimated undiscounted cost for an individual rating to take crowd management training.
Table 7: Coast Guard Approved Training Centers Currently Offering Crowd
Management Training Costs
Training Center
Website39
Cost
Hours40

See table 4 for more specifics on the numbers of ratings who would seek crowd management training
over the next 10 years of analysis.
39 All websites accessed March 15, 2023.
40 Not all training providers indicated the length of course time on their websites. Those not providing the
length of their offered crowd management course are indicated with an N/A in the Hours column.
Alaska Vocational
Technical Center
Captain School USVI
Chesapeake Marine
Training Institute
Maritime Professional
Training
Maritime Institute

Quality Maritime
Training, LLC
Resolve Maritime
Academy
Average

https://avtec.edu/maritime/courses/
crowd-management-alavtc-142/
http://www.captainschoolusvi.com
/
https://www.chesapeakemarineinst
.com/cmti-course/crowdmanagement/
https://www.mptusa.com/coursedetails/crowd-managementcourse-155
https://maritimeinstitute.com/cours
e/crowd-management/
http://qualitymaritimetraining.com
/courses/all-courses/crowdmanagement/
https://resolveacademy.com/course
/crowd-management/

$90.00

4.0

$250.00

N/A

$200.00

4.0

$199.00

8.0

$400

7.0

$195.00

4.0

$199.00

4.0

$219

5.17

Table 8: Opportunity Cost of Time for Ratings to Complete a Crowd Management
Course

Loaded
Total Opportunity Cost of
Wage Rate
Hours
Crowd Management Course
(a)
(c) = (a) × (b)
(b)
$41.54
$332
8
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
(b) Travel Distribution
To estimate the cost of travel and the opportunity cost of travel time, we assume
varying modes of travel for mariners getting to and from approved training based on the
distribution of travel modes, derived in table 16 of CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-21:
Guidelines for Qualifying for STCW Endorsements for Basic and Advanced IGF Code
Operations cost analysis.41 We reflect the same percentages in this NPRM as in the
policy letter by assuming that 20 percent would drive to the training center and return the

https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCG-2020-0181-0002. Similar methodology was also used in
the Towing Vessel Firefighting Training Appendix A, published on October 3, 2023, (88 FR 67966),
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCG-2020-0492-0013.
same day, 46 percent would drive and stay 2 nights, and 34 percent would fly and stay 2
nights.42 The percentages used in CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-21 derived from the
distance required to travel to the nearest training provider for each mariner based on the
ZIP Code associated with their credential and the ZIP Codes associated with the training
provider locations. The policy letter utilized a random sample of 100 mariners with
STCW endorsements involving the International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or
Other Low Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) travelling to training centers offering relevant
IGF Code training courses. In that analysis, we determined that 20 mariners would
commute to the nearest training provider (or live less than 85.4 miles from a training
provider), 46 would drive to the nearest training provider and lodge overnight (or live
between 85.4 miles and 583.5 miles from a training provider), and 34 would fly to the
nearest training provider and lodge overnight (or live greater than 583.5 miles from a
training provider).
Because there is no specific endorsement for the population of mariners affected
by this proposed rule (mariners serving on small passenger ships making international
voyages), it is not possible to accurately replicate this methodology in this analysis. Due
to this lack of data, we have determined to use the percentages as they appear in CGMMC Policy Letter 01-21. We acknowledge that this creates uncertainty surrounding
our cost estimates related to travel for this specific population of mariners. The Coast
Guard requests public comment on our decision to use these predetermined rates of travel
for this cost analysis.
We use the same methodology from CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-21 to estimate the
thresholds and opportunity costs for travel among the affected population. Using updated
data, the Coast Guard estimates that mariners who live or reside less than 93.9 miles from
a training provider would commute to the closest site without lodging or utilizing

Id.

overnight accommodations. We base this assumption on a report titled, “Commuting in
America (2): The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends,” from the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which posits that
Americans, on average, are willing to spend up to a maximum of 90 minutes commuting
to work each way.43 This report, which used data from the American Community
Survey, illustrates that approximately 97.5 percent of American commuters spent 90
minutes (1.5 hours) or less commuting to work.44 To convert 90 minutes into a distance,
we calculate an average driving speed using data from the Department of Transportation
(DOT’s) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s report, “National Traffic
Speeds Survey III: 2015.” 45 From this report, we take the mean speed from the three
road classes across the five time periods provided. We obtain an average speed of 62.6
mph. We then multiply the average speed of these three road classes by 1.5 hours (90
minutes) to obtain our commuting distance threshold of 93.9 miles (62.6 mph × 1.5
hours).
The next threshold we estimated is the distance at which a mariner would choose
to drive to the training provider and lodge for the duration of the training before returning
to their place of residence. To determine this distance, we establish a range by
calculating the minimum and maximum distances for this threshold. The minimum

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials conducted the report in 2013
and used Census Bureau data in the report. Please see Figure 11-13 on page 16 to obtain the travel
distribution time to work in minutes. Readers can access the report at
https://transportation.org/traveltrends/commuting-in-america/brief-13-11-commuting-departure-time-andtrip-time/. Last accessed March 12, 2024.
44 The American Community Survey is an ongoing survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. It regularly gathers
information pertaining to demographics and housing characteristics of U.S. households. More information
on this survey can be found at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about.html (last visited
6/3/2024).
For information on “mega-commuting” refer to footnote 29 or this brochure from the ACS:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2013/demo/SEHSD-WP2013-03.pdf
(last visited 6/3/2024).
45 In order to convert this to distance, we take the mean total of table 12’s Speed by Road Type and Time of
Day estimates from 2015 to get at average road speed of 62.6 miles per hour. This information can be
found in table 12 using the “Download Document” link for Publication No. DOT HS 812 485 (March
2018) at this website: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/35961 (last visited 6/3/2024).
distance at which mariners would drive and lodge during training must be equal to the
threshold established by those mariners commuting: 93.9 miles (188 miles round trip).
The National Household Travel Survey estimates that 94.3 percent of Americans
travel by personal vehicle when making round trips of less than 500 miles.46 We use this
distance of 500 miles as the lower bound of our maximum distance threshold. To
estimate the upper bound of our maximum distance threshold, we reference data from the
Office of Airline Information report, “Average Length of Haul, Domestic Freight and
Passenger Modes (Miles),” which calculated the average domestic passenger flight length
of 944 miles (1,888 miles round trip) in 2021.47 We use this average domestic passenger
flight statistic because it reflects a distance at which the average American prefers flying
over other modes of transportation when traveling from one location to another.
Additionally, to validate the value of an 1,888 miles round trip, we reference the
National Household Travel Survey data. A round-trip distance of 1,888 miles is close to
the 2,000 plus miles round-trip distance category used by the National Household Travel
Survey. For trips of over 2,000 miles round trip, 22.2 percent of Americans would travel
by car and 74.8 percent would travel by flying. We then average our lower and upper
bounds for the maximum distance threshold to obtain an average maximum distance of
1,194 miles [(500 miles + 1,888 miles) ÷ 2], or 597 miles one-way.
Therefore, the Coast Guard determines that, beyond 583.4 miles between a
mariner’s place of residence and the training provider they attended, mariners would

46The

BTS conducted the National Household Travel Survey in 2001, and it was last updated in May of
2017. Please see table 4, “Percent of Long-Distance Trips by Mode and Roundtrip Distance” to obtain the
travel distance distribution of trips by miles and travel mode. Readers can access the table at:
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/table
_04. The table was accessed on September 13, 2022.
47 The Office of Airline Information at the BTS collects air freight and domestic passenger summary data.
This office divides revenue passenger miles by revenue passenger enplanements to calculate the average
length of passenger trips. To find the average length of a domestic flight, please see table 1-38, “Average
Length of Haul, Domestic Freight and Passenger Modes (Miles)” and refer to cell AM:13. Readers can
access the table at:
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-length-haul-domestic-freight-and-passenger-modes-miles. The table
was accessed on March 12, 2024.

choose to fly and lodge instead of drive and lodge. Table 9 displays the distance
thresholds for all three choices of transportation.
Table 9: Modes of Travel and Travel Distance Thresholds
Travel Choice

Travel Distance (One-Way) Threshold for a Mariner to
Reach their Nearest Training Provider Denoted by x

Commute
Drive and Lodge
Fly and Lodge

x < 93.9 miles
93.9 miles ≤ x ≤ 597 miles
x > 597 miles

(c) Opportunity Cost of Travel Time for Mariners
After determining the travel mode thresholds, the Coast Guard then determined
the costs associated with each mode of travel. A mariner incurs an opportunity cost
during the time they spend traveling to the closest training provider. To calculate these
costs, we utilized the commuting distances and times calculated in CG-MMC Policy
Letter 01-21. The policy letter calculated that the average commuter faces a 61.2-mile
round trip, and those driving and lodging face approximately a 498.8-mile round trip.48
Next, we calculated the wages associated with the opportunity cost of travel. To
calculate these costs, we took the mean hourly loaded wage rate for a rating taking a
crowd management course, $41.54, and multiplied it by the time required to travel to and
from the closest training provider. For mariners commuting, it would take an average
round-trip time of approximately 0.98 hours to commute to a training provider [the
average round-trip distance divided by the average mean road class speed (61.2 miles
round trip ÷ 62.6 mph)]. Similarly, we performed this calculation for those mariners
driving and lodging to get an average round-trip time of about 7.97 hours (498.8 ÷ 62.6
mph). However, mariners driving and lodging would be traveling only half the roundtrip distance, or 3.99 hours, twice (on the day of arrival and the day of departure). Lastly,

The calculations for average trip distances were obtained from page 31 of the CG-MMC Policy Letter
01-21: Guidelines for Qualifying for STCW Endorsements for Basic and Advanced IGF Code Operations
cost analysis. See https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCG-2020-0181-0002 (last visited 6/3/2024).
the Coast Guard estimated that it would take mariners the equivalent of an entire workday
(8 hours) to fly to a training provider and fly back to their place of residence. This
estimate encompasses the time necessary to travel to and from the airport, to go through
security, wait for boarding, time on the tarmac, time in-flight, and the time to go through
baggage claim upon arrival.
For each travel mode, we multiplied the mean hourly loaded wage rate by the
average commuting time, and the days traveling and the distribution of travel mode to
arrive at the weighted opportunity cost of travel for a mariner. Table 10 displays the
opportunity cost of time for each mode of transportation for an individual mariner.
Table 10. Weighted Average of Opportunity Cost of Time Used by Mode of
Transportation per Mariner
Loaded
Percent
Total
Hourly
of
Opportunity
Commuting
Wage for Mariners
Cost
Time per
Days
a Deck
who
(Sum of
columns)
Day (hours) Traveling
Officer
Travel
(a)
(c)
(d)
=(a)×(b)×(c)×(d)
Mode of Travel
(b)
Flying to Training
8
2
$41.54
34.00%
$226
Provider
Driving to Training
Provider and
3.99
2
$41.54
46.00%
$152
Lodging
Commuting to
0.97
1
$41.54
20.00%
$8
Training Provider
Average Total
Opportunity Cost
of Travel for a
$387
Mariner for Crowd
Management
Training
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
(d) Fuel Costs
If a mariner chooses to commute or chooses to drive and lodge for the duration of
the training, they would incur the costs associated with the use of their own personal
vehicle to travel to and from the training provider. The U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA) sets the mileage reimbursement rate for federal employees who

use their privately owned vehicle (POV) for official government travel and to present this
information in a single standard mileage rate. The GSA also conducts reviews of travel
costs on an annual basis to determine the mileage reimbursement rate by factoring in the
costs of the following: the price of gasoline and oil, depreciation of the original vehicle
cost, the costs of maintenance and insurance, and state and Federal taxes. The GSA
approximates the POV mileage reimbursement rate to be $0.56 per mile in 2021.49 To
calculate the fuel costs for mariners commuting and not lodging, we multiplied this
reimbursement rate by the number of days a mariner commutes by the average round-trip
distance calculated for commuting, 61.2 miles. We used this same method when
calculating the costs for mariners driving and lodging, with the difference being that they
spend the equivalent of 1 day when completing their round-trip distance of 498.8 miles.
Therefore, a mariner would incur a fuel cost of about $34.27 ($0.56 × 61.2 miles × 1 day)
when commuting and $279.33 ($0.56 × 498.8 miles × 1 day) when driving to and lodging
near a training provider.
A mariner traveling by air would need to pay for round-trip airfare and transport
fare to and from the airport. Using data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS), we estimate the average unadjusted round-trip airfare to be $307 in 2021.50 To
calculate the cost of transport, we refer to the costs of round-trip airport transfer in the
2006 interim rule, Validation of Merchant Mariners’ Vital Information and Issuance of
Coast Guard Merchant Mariner’s Licenses and Certificates of Registry, published
January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2154), or $50. We inflate this value using the 2021 4th Quarter
and the 2006 4th Quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) implicit price deflator values of

The GSA mileage rate data is available at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfarerates-pov-rates/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived. We used the rate per mile
rate of $0.56 for January 1, 2021.
50 To view the annual average price of a round-trip airfare for 2021 in unadjusted dollars, visit the link at:
https://www.bts.dot.gov/newsroom/2021-annual-average-domestic-air-fares-remainstable#:~:text=The%202021%20annual%20average%20domestic,collecting%20such%20records%20in%2
01995 (last visited 6/3/2024).
112.848 and 84.770, respectively.51 After dividing the values, we obtain a factor of
approximately 1.331. We multiply this value by $50 to obtain a transfer cost of
approximately $66.55, in 2021 dollars. Table 11 presents the average fuel and transfer
costs associated with ratings completing a crowd management course.
Table 11: Weighted Average Fuel and Transfer Costs for a Rating taking Crowd
Management Course
Fuel
Cost/
Ticket
Cost
(a)
$307.00
$279.33
$34.27

Transport
Fare to and
from
Airport (b)
$66.55
$0
$0

Mode of Travel
Flying and lodging
Driving and lodging
Commuting
Weighted Average
Fuel Cost for a
Mariner taking
Crowd Management
Training
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Percent of
Mariners
who Travel
(c)
34%
46%
20%

Average Cost to
Mariner
= [(a) + (b)] × (c)
$127
$128
$7
$262

(e) Meal and Incidental Expense (M&IE) Rates and Lodging Costs
Mariners incur M&IE during training and travel days, and mariners not
commuting incur lodging expenses during training days. To estimate these costs, we
utilize the GSA 2021 general travel per diem rates of $55 for a full day and $41.25 for
first and last day, calculated at 75 percent of the full day rate.52 We also utilize the
general lodging rates provided by GSA for 2021 and a calculated average lodging tax rate
for 2021 from the 2021 HVS Lodging Tax Report – USA,53 to arrive at average lodging
costs of $102.09 per night. 54

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product: Implicit Price Deflator [GDPDEF],
retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF,
March 6, 2024.
52 GSA per diem rates can be found here: https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/fy2021per-diem-rates-for-federal-travelers-released-08142020 (last visited 6/3/2024). See
https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-and-book/per-diem-rates/faqs#15 , reference FAQ #15, for information on
calculating first and last travel day M&IE per diem.
53 https://www.hvs.com/article/9160-2021-hvs-lodging-tax-report-usa (last visited 6/3/2024).
54 The lodging cost includes lodging tax. According to the GSA, the standard lodging rate for 2021 was
$96. See https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/fy2021-per-diem-rates-for-federal51

We assume that those who choose to drive or fly would spend 2 nights (arrival
and training day) in a hotel, which costs $102.09 per night, for a total of $204.18.
Accordingly, personnel who commute to a training center would incur $41.25, while
personnel who drive or fly would spend about $137.50 ((2 days × $41.25) + (1 day ×
$55)) on meals and incidentals. Table 12 presents the weighted average cost breakdown
by mode of transportation.
Table 12: Weighted Average Mariners Incur M&IE and Lodging Costs
(Undiscounted) for Ratings taking Crowd Management Course

Mode of
Travel
Flying and
lodging
Driving and
lodging
Commuting
Weighted
Average
MI&E and
Lodging Costs

(b)

Percent of
Mariners
who Travel
(c)

Total Cost
= [(a)+(b)] × (c)

$204.18

$137.50

34.00%

$116.17

$204.18

$137.50

46.00%

$157.17

$0.00

$41.25

20.00%

$8.25

Lodging
Costs
(a)

M&IE

$282

(f) Documentation Costs
It is the responsibility of the operating companies who are obligated by STCW
Convention Regulation I/14, “Responsibilities of Companies,” to ensure that
documentation relevant to personnel training is maintained and readily accessible.
According to the information collection request, Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1995, 1997 and 2010 Amendments to the
International Convention (OMB Control Number 1625-0079), it currently takes a
technical specialist 0.083 hours (5 minutes) to record that personnel serving on passenger

travelers-released-08142020. The average lodging tax rate was 6.34%, which can be found here:
https://www.hvs.com/article/9160-2021-hvs-lodging-tax-report-usa. These websites were accessed on
September 13, 2022. Thus, lodging cost per night is estimated to be $102.09 [($96 per night × 6.34% =
$6.09 tax) + $96].

vessels are trained as required by Regulation V/2 of the STCW Convention. Given that
this proposed rule expands the applicability of the crowd management training to ratings
qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention, and that other STCW
Convention and STCW Code trainings are already required to be recorded, we assume
this documentation would not create additional costs. The Coast Guard requests
comment on the validity of this assumption.
(g) Total Cost to Mariners Taking Crowd Management Training
We estimate the total undiscounted annual costs for mariners required to take a
crowd management course by adding the totals costs in tables 7, 8, 8, 9, and 10 and then
multiplying by the affected population in table 5. We estimate the total undiscounted 10year cost to be $211,850, and the undiscounted average cost to be $21,185 in 2021
dollars. Table 13 describes the total undiscounted costs for mariners taking a crowd
management course over the next 10 years of analysis.
Table 13: Total Undiscounted Costs for Mariners Taking a Crowd Management
Course

Year

Mariners
Required
to Take
Training
Course
(a)

Total
Opportunity
Cost of
Travel
(b)

Total
Fuel
Costs
(c)

Average
MI&E
&
Lodging
Costs
(d)

Opportunity
Cost of Time
of Taking
Course
(e)

Tuition
Costs
(f)

Total Costs =
[a×(b+c+d+e+f)]

44

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$65,185

14

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$20,741

13

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$19,259

12

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$17,778

12

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$17,778

11

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$16,296

10

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$14,815

10

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$14,815

9

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$13,333

8

$387

$262

$282

$332

$219

$11,852

Average

$21,185

Average
(Years 2
- 10)

$16,296

10-Year
Total

$211,850

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Likewise, table 14 describes the total cost to industry (operating companies and
ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention) of the
proposed rulemaking. Operating companies would incur the costs of the proposed
passenger ship emergency familiarization, while the ratings who would be required to
take the crowd management course under the proposed expanded applicability would
incur those related costs. The Coast Guard estimates that the annualized total cost to
industry over the next 10 years of analysis would be $375,707, in 2021 dollars, when
discounted at 2 percent.
Table 14: Total Cost to Industry of the Proposed Rulemaking Over a 10-Year
Period of Analysis (2021 dollars)

Year

Crowd Management
Passenger Ship Training Costs for
Emergency
Ratings Qualified
Total Cost
Familiarization
Under STCW
Costs
Chapters II, III, and
VII
$390,941
$65,185
$456,126

Discounted (2%)

$447,182

$382,412

$20,741

$403,153

$387,498

$373,883

$19,259

$393,142

$370,467

$365,354

$17,778

$383,132

$353,954

$356,825

$17,778

$374,602

$339,289

$348,296

$16,296

$364,592

$323,747

$339,767

$14,815

$354,581

$308,684

$331,237

$14,815

$346,052

$295,352

$322,708

$13,333

$336,042

$281,185

$314,179

$11,852

$326,031

$267,459

$3,737,452

$3,374,817

Total
Annualized

$375,707

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Standards Incorporated by Reference (IBR)-Related Changes
Proposed IBR-related changes refer to the sections in 46 CFR Parts 11 and 12 that
would be revised to incorporate the 2017 Edition of the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code. See Section V, Discussion of Proposed Rule, in this preamble. In

themselves, the IBR-related changes do not impose any cost on the regulated industry.
Table 2 describes each IBR-related change in the proposed rule and provides
explanations for the no-cost determinations.
Costs to Government
Coast Guard inspectors are currently requesting mariner credentials and training
records related to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code, but they are not tracking
compliance with the requirements outlined in this proposed rule since compliance is
currently voluntary. We estimate that verifying the training documents currently would
require 5-10 minutes per vessel. We do not anticipate this rulemaking to add to the time
and resources currently necessary to verify training certificates as part of an inspection.
Accordingly, the proposed rulemaking has no new costs to the Government.
Benefits
The Coast Guard anticipates that the proposed rule would improve the safety of
life at sea in the case of an emergency by ensuring that ship personnel are familiar with
safety features, emergency equipment and procedures, basic communication, and crowd
management techniques. This is important so that the ship’s personnel would be able to
assist passengers, including elderly and disabled individuals, during an emergency. The
consequences of the loss of a ship from the affected population are potentially
catastrophic.
While there are no examples of major accidents in the affected population of
U.S.-flagged ships, the Costa Concordia disaster in the foreign fleet provides some
insight into the how costly improper emergency management can be. On January 13,
2012, the Costa Concordia, an Italian passenger ship operating in the Mediterranean Sea
with 3,206 passengers and 1,023 crewmembers on board, struck a reef off the Italian
coastline. The incident resulted in the loss of 32 lives (27 passengers and 5
crewmembers), injury to 157 others, and the total loss of the ship. In the ensuing

accident report,55 the Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports concluded that
multiple factors contributed to the injuries and loss of life. Some of these factors
included delayed management of the emergency response and evacuation process,
inconsistencies in assignment of duties, communication issues due to the different
backgrounds of passengers and crewmembers, and passenger confusion over which
personnel employed on passenger vessels were trained to assist in an emergency.56 While
other factors certainly contributed to the loss of life and injury in this maritime disaster, it
is evident that clearly communicated emergency procedures and experience with crowd
management could have aided both crew and passengers in responding to the emergency
occurring onboard their ship. Both U.S.-flagged ships and ships in the foreign-flagged
fleet (where U.S. passengers disproportionately travel) can expose passengers and crew
to greater risk of loss of life and injury.
While we have not conducted a risk analysis on the U.S.-flagged ship population
related to the training provisions in this proposed rule due to a lack of data, we can
estimate the costs associated with loss of life and ship in the population. We utilized data
from the National Vessel Documentation Center to estimate $809,500 as the median price
of a U.S.-flagged passenger ship.57 In addition, we reviewed the manning requirements
for all 50 ships in the ship population to derive the average manning requirement and
maximum number of passengers. Based on this data, we estimate that the average ship in
the population can carry 11 mariners (2 officers, 1 specified rating, and 8 personnel) and
120 total passengers at one time. In order to estimate the benefit of preventing a fatality,
we utilize the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) estimate of $11.8 million for analyses,

See footnote 8.
Ibid at 159.
57 The median price is utilized here due to significant outliers on the upper bound of vessel valuations. The
mean price is weighted upward by the inclusion of 4 large ships with valuations of $500,000,000, which is
atypical for the relatively small size ships in the population.
55
using a base year of 2021.58 The VSL is defined as the additional cost that individuals
would be willing to bear for improvements in safety (that is, reductions in risks) that, in
the aggregate, reduce the expected number of fatalities by one. This conventional
terminology has often provoked misunderstanding on the part of both the public and
decisionmakers. What is involved is not the valuation of life, as such, but the valuation
of reductions in risks. For example, a VSL of $11.8 million does not mean that a specific
human life is worth $11.8 million but is, instead, meant to measure the willingness to pay
for reductions in only small risks of premature death (say, $118 for a risk of 1 in
100,000). This approach to valuation of mortality risks is endorsed by OMB Circular A4, which provides guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis.59
In the event of a total loss of ship and life due to lack of emergency training and
procedure, we estimate losses totaling $809,500 from loss of ships and $1.5 billion from
loss of life,60 per ship lost.
Beyond the costs associated with a catastrophic loss, it should be noted that the
United States is required to implement amendments to the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code through national regulations. Failure to meet our treaty obligation to fully
implement the STCW Convention could cause the United States to lose its status on the
IMO White List. The White List distinguishes administrations that are in full compliance
with the STCW Convention and the STCW Code. Loss of this status could cause U.S.
ships to be subject to more rigorous PSC inspections in foreign ports, including possible
detainment or denial of entry, resulting in potential revenue losses. Additionally, U.S.
mariners could be ineligible to serve on foreign-flagged passenger ships. Hence, by

For more information on the VSL, see the DOT guidance located at
https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-onvaluation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis (last visited 3/12/2024).
59 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf .
60 Loss of life is calculated as $1,545,800,000 [($11.8 million × 131 people (11 crew members and 120
passengers)], rounded.
aligning national regulations with the STCW Convention and the STCW Code, the
proposed rule would ensure that owners and operators of U.S.-flagged ships, as well as
U.S. mariners, are able to operate in international markets.
Further, there is an additional benefit in the promotion of international
harmonization and reciprocity of maritime regulation. This proposed rule advances
Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Cooperation,” which targets
international regulatory cooperation to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements. By promoting harmonization of international
maritime safety regulations, the United States ensures that our ships comply with
international standards and meet the regulations of foreign countries while our ships are
in their waters, while also promoting higher baseline safety standards for foreign-flagged
ships that often carry U.S. passengers.
Alternatives Considered
As a party to the STCW Convention, the United States is obligated to implement
all amendments into domestic law. The United States proposed and supported these
amendments, recognizing the enhanced safety measure as desirable.
This proposed rule would codify the STCW Convention and the STCW Code,
including amendments through 2016. As a signatory to the STCW Convention, the
United States must ensure compliance with its treaty obligations through full
implementation of amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code. The
STCW Convention is not self-implementing; therefore, the Coast Guard does not have
discretion and must issue regulations to implement these requirements. Failure to meet
the treaty obligations could cause the United States to lose status on the IMO’s “White
List,” which distinguishes administrations that are in full compliance with the STCW
Convention and the STCW Code. Because the Coast Guard must implement the training
requirements outlined in the 2016 amendments and does not propose to implement any

discretionary requirements as a part of this proposed rule, we have not examined any
alternatives to the proposed rule.
B.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The term “small entities”
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned
and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the impact of this proposed
rule on small entities addresses the following as required under section 603(b) of the
RFA:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed
rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small
entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills
necessary for preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that
may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered.

The growth of foreign flagged passenger ships as a vacation destination has
resulted in the launching of consistently larger ships and subsequent concerns over
passenger safety. Passenger ship travel requires passengers to feel assured of their safety,
regardless of where the ship originates or hails. Typically, passengers are only on board
these ships for a short time, and seldom have maritime experience, so they rely on the
ship’s crew to assist them in emergency situations. In emergency situations, it may be
impossible for passengers to identify which crewmembers are trained to assist them in an
emergency. Such situations pose risks to life, health, and safety, as well as damage to
property and the marine environment.
The IMO has worked to address these risks, leading to amendments in 2016 to the
STCW Convention and the STCW Code to ensure that passenger ship personnel are
familiar with the safety features, emergency equipment and procedures, basic
communication, and crowd management techniques in order to assist passengers,
including elderly and disabled individuals, during an emergency.
The United States is a signatory to the STCW Convention and must ensure
compliance with its treaty obligations through full implementation of the STCW
Convention and the STCW Code. The STCW Convention is not self-implementing. The
Coast Guard must issue regulations to implement these requirements. The Coast Guard
issued CG-MMC Policy Letter 02-21 to advise owners and operators of U.S. passenger
ship operating companies of the requirements of the STCW Convention and the STCW
Code. However, if the Coast Guard does not issue regulations to implement these
requirements, they are not enforceable, and there is a risk that U.S. ships could be denied
entry to or detained in foreign ports, that U.S. mariners could be ineligible to serve on
foreign-flagged ships, and that operating companies, personnel, and, we believe, the
passengers would be at higher risk for loss of ship, serious injury, or loss of life as the
result of an emergency for which mariners and personnel were unprepared.

2. A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule.
The legal basis of this proposed rule is title 14 U.S.C. 102(3), which grants the
Coast Guard broad authority to promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of
safety of life and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. More
specifically, 46 U.S.C. 7101 authorizes the Secretary of DHS to prescribe the
requirements for credentialing , and 46 U.S.C. 7306 and 7313 authorize the prescription
of requirements for ratings. The Secretary of DHS has delegated these statutory
authorities to the Coast Guard through DHS Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(92)(e), Revision
No. 01.4, which generally authorizes the Coast Guard to determine and establish the
experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of credentials.
3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities
to which the proposed rule will apply.
As described in section VII A, Regulatory Planning and Review, in this
document, there would be two affected populations of the proposed rule: (1) operating
companies that would incur the costs of the proposed required passenger ship emergency
familiarization, and (2) ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW
Convention who would need to complete a crowd management course. Ratings qualified
under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention are individuals and not entities;
as such, the second affected population does not contain any small entities. We focus the
attention of this analysis on the operating companies of U.S.-flagged passenger ships.
Of the 50 ships in the affected ship population, there are 37 operating companies. Of
these 37 operating companies:
•

2 are governmental jurisdictions with populations over 50,000, neither of which is
classified as a small entity;

•

1 is a non-profit organization, and is classified as a small entity;

•

34 are private companies, of which 2 are not classified as small businesses, 20 are

classified as small businesses, and 13 could not be classified because information
could not be found on those 13 businesses. For the purpose of this analysis, we
classify those 13 businesses, where information could not be found, as small
entities.
We researched the number of employees and revenue of these companies using
proprietary and public business databases. Then we measured company size data using
the SBA business size standards to assess how many companies in this industry may be
small entities. The SBA provides business size standards for all sectors of the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).61 Our analysis of the available
company information revealed 10 primary NAICS codes. Table 15 displays the NAICS
codes of the small businesses found in our sample.
Table 15: NAICS Codes of Identified Small Businesses
Title

Count of Small
Businesses

SBA Size
Standard
Type

Revenue

$14,000,000

Employee

3

Revenue

$9,000,000

Revenue

$25,000,000

1

Revenue

$19,000,000

1

Revenue

$45,000,000

NAICS
Code

Scenic and
Sightseeing
48721005
Transportation,
Water
Inland Water
48321201
Passenger
Transportation
All Other
Amusement
71399021
and Recreation
Industries
56152007
Tour Operators
Site
Preparation
Contractors
New Singlefamily
Housing
Construction
(Except For-

SBA Size Threshold

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/202306/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20%282%29.pdf (last
visited 6/3/2024).
Sale Builders)
Hotels (except
Casino Hotels)
and Motels
Boat Dealers
All Other
Transit and
Ground
Passenger
Transportation

1

Revenue

$40,000,000

1

Revenue

$40,000,000

1

Revenue

$19,000,000

Revenue Impacts of the Proposed Rule. To determine the impacts of the proposed
rule on small operating companies, we used information on revenue or employee size as
available on business directory websites.
As discussed in the “Cost to Industry” section of the regulatory analysis, we
estimate that there is a population of 50 ships that would be subject to this rule in the first
year of implementation, with an estimated population decline of 1 ship per year in
subsequent years. There are 37 unique owners and operators of the affected ships
employing 1,080 officers, ratings, and personnel subject to the proposed passenger ship
emergency familiarization requirements, 33 of which are considered small entities. The
Coast Guard was able to find revenue data on 20 of those 33 small entities, allowing us to
analyze estimated impacts.
We estimate that 4 hours is the time needed for officers, ratings, and personnel to
complete the proposed passenger ship emergency familiarization. In addition, a
management level officer would need approximately 2 hours to prepare to deliver the
passenger ship emergency familiarization aboard each ship for each crew. We assume
there are 2 crews per vessel to account for the rotational nature of shipboard employment,
and that each crew (serving an average of 6 months on board each ship) will take the
training twice per year in line with other quarterly training requirements as outlined in 46
CFR § 185.420 and § 122.420. Thus, we multiply the estimated training and training

preparation hours by 2 to capture the quarterly frequency of training per year. The loaded
hourly wage rate of officers, ratings, and personnel are $68.11, $41.54, and $35.90
respectively.
Because all officers, ratings, and additional personnel are required to participate
in emergency familiarization training, the Coast Guard needed to determine the number
of officers, ratings, and personnel impacted by the proposed passenger ship emergency
familiarization requirements. To determine this, we reviewed the certificate of inspection
for all 27 U.S.-flagged passenger ships in the affected ship population owned by entities
with available revenue data and reviewed the manning requirements for each ship. We
then added the total officers, ratings, and additional personnel for each ship owned by
each entity and multiplied by 2 to account for both crews on each ship. After
determining the total affected personnel for each entity, we then calculate undiscounted
first-year costs (in 2021 dollars) for each impacted small entity in the affected population
with known revenue data[(number of officers delivering training × 4 preparation hours ×
$68.11 hourly wage) + (number of officers × 8 training hours × $68.11 hourly wage) +
(number of specified ratings × 8 training hours × $41.54 hourly wage) + (number of
additional personnel × 8 training hours × $35.90 hourly wage)]. We then divide the
calculated first-year cost by the small entity’s revenue to find the level of impact on the
affected small entity. For example, for owner or operator “A” in column 1, we estimate
undiscounted first-year costs of $13,490.40 [(8 officers × $68.11 officer wage × 8
training hours) + (0 ratings × $41.54 rating wage × 8 training hours) + (28 additional
personnel × $35.90 personnel wage × 8 training hours) + (4 officers delivering training ×
$68.11 officer wage × 4 training preparation hours)]. We then find the estimated level of
impact on owner or operator “A” of 0.76 percent by dividing the calculated first-year cost
by its revenue obtained from public business databases ($13,490.40 ÷ $891,000 =
1.56%). See Table 16 for the calculations of first-year costs and impacts on small entities

in the affected population.
Table 16: Estimated First-Year Impact of the Emergency Familiarization Training
for Affected Small Entities with Known Revenue Data
Officer
s
Addition Delive
Owner or
Number
al
ring Officer
Operator
Officers Ratings
of Ships
Personne Traini Wage
62
l
ng (2
per
Ship)

Train
Training
Additional ing
Rating
Prepara
Personnel Hour
Total Cost
Wage
tion
Wage
s
Hours

Owner or
Operator
Revenue

Percent
Impact

A

8

28

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$13,490.40

$891,000.00

1.51%

B

8

14

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$10,014.48

$2,184,000.00

0.46%

C

2

10

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$4,506.64

$1,313,000.00

0.34%

D

2

10

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$4,506.64

$8,000,000.00

0.06%

E

6

12

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$8,350.32

$15,400,000.00

0.05%

F

4

4

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$3,873.20

$534,000.00

0.73%

G

4

4

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$3,873.20

$31,124,000.00

0.01%

H

4

8

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$5,022.00

$744,000.00

0.68%

I

4

8

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$5,022.00

$298,000.00

1.69%

J

6

8

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$7,201.52

$2,184,000.00

0.33%

K

2

8

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$3,932.24

$19,481,000.00

0.02%

L

2

4

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$2,783.44

$1,649,000.00

0.17%

M

4

12

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$6,170.80

$149,000.00

4.14%

N

4

10

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$5,596.40

$149,000.00

3.76%

O

4

10

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$5,596.40

$337,000.00

1.66%

P

4

12

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$6,170.80

$149,000.00

4.14%
0.00%

Q

4

12

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$6,170.80

$236,343,000.0
R

4

10

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$5,596.40

$649,000.00

0.86%

S

2

2

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$2,209.04

$2,400,000.00

0.09%

T

4

6

$68.11

$41.54

$35.90

4

$4,447.60

$149,000.00

2.98%

For this proposed rule, the Coast Guard considers an impact of greater than 1
percent (.01) of a small entity’s annual revenue to be a significant impact. Table 17
shows the distribution of revenue impacts on the small entities affected by this proposed
rule. In addition to the less than 1 percent threshold, which indicates no significant
impact, we also include the 1-to-3 percent threshold indicating significant impact, and a
greater than 3 percent threshold showing even greater impacts on affected small entities.
The Coast Guard estimates that 7 small entities, or 35 percent of the population with
known revenue, would incur significant impacts, with 3 of those small entities incurring

Small entity names have been removed to protect personal identifiable information.

impacts greater than 3 percent of their annual revenue.
Table 17: Distribution of Revenue Impacts
Percent of
Revenue
Impact
<1%
1–3%
>3%

Small Entities
with Known
Revenue
13
4
Portion of Small
Entities with Known
Revenue
65%
20%
15%

4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities
which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
This proposed rule would call for a revised collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 ̶ 3520. This proposed rule would
revise the current information collection, Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1995, 1997 and 2010 Amendments to the
International Convention, OMB Control Number: 1625-0079.
Under the existing OMB Control Number 1625-0079, the Coast Guard collects
information from owners and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger ships, and ratings and
officers serving on these ships, as well as from training centers. The proposed rule would
add additional collection of information requirements to this existing collection of
information in order to implement the STCW Convention and the STCW Code. These
additional collection of information requirements would: (1) require the operating
companies of U.S.-flagged passenger ships that carry 12 passengers or more on
international voyages to provide documentary evidence that all personnel serving on
these ships have completed a passenger ship emergency familiarization, and (2) require
documentary evidence that required personnel have completed crowd management
training for ratings serving on U.S.-flagged passenger ships that carry 12 passengers or

more on international voyages.
The additional collection of information in the proposed rule would ensure that
mariners have completed training necessary to comply with the STCW Convention and
the STCW Code and adequately assist passengers in the event of an emergency. The
additional collection of information is also needed to demonstrate to the IMO that the
United States, as a signatory to the STCW Convention, has met the obligation to
implement requirements through national regulations.
The additional collection of information in this proposed rule would affect an
estimated 33 small entities. These entities are owners and operators of ships carrying 12
or more passengers on international voyages who employ officers, ratings, and personnel
required to complete passenger ship emergency familiarization.
According to the current collection of information, a management level officer
spends about 5 minutes to document evidence of personnel training on behalf of
operating companies. Accordingly, we estimate that the passenger ship emergency
familiarization requirement of the proposed rule would increase the burden hour of the
existing collection of information by 8.3 hours (50 ships × 0.166 hours per response × 2
crews = 16.6 hours).
In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of the proposed rule, there are also
new training requirements. First, the proposed rule would expand the applicability of
crowd management training by requiring ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII
of the STCW Convention to complete this training. Currently, only officers and
personnel designated on the muster list to assist passengers in emergency situations are
required to complete this training.
Second, the proposed rule creates a new requirement for all personnel to complete
passenger ship emergency familiarization appropriate to their capacity, duties, and
responsibilities during an emergency. Personnel would have to complete the

familiarization before being assigned to shipboard duties. The passenger ship emergency
familiarization requirement would apply to all personnel, including masters, officers, and
ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention. This
familiarization would not require Coast Guard approval in accordance with 46 CFR part
10, subpart D, and could be conducted on board the ship or at a shore-based location.
Mariners or ship operators should maintain documentation verifying that personnel have
completed the passenger ship emergency familiarization. This training includes topics to
familiarize personnel with the general safety features aboard the ship, the location of
essential safety equipment, including life-saving appliances, the importance of personal
conduct during the implementation of emergency plans, and restrictions on the use of
elevators during emergencies. Passenger ship emergency familiarization also includes
the requirement to communicate with passengers during an emergency, including the
ability to communicate in the working language of the ship, including non-verbally
communicating safety information, and understanding one of the languages in which
emergency announcements may be broadcast on the ship during an emergency or drill.
5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which
may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this proposed rule.
6. A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
As a party to the STCW Convention, the United States is obligated to implement
all amendments into domestic law. The United States proposed and supported these
amendments, recognizing the enhanced safety measure as desirable.
This proposed rule would codify the 2017 edition of the STCW Convention and

the STCW Code. As a signatory to the STCW Convention, the United States must ensure
compliance with its treaty obligations through full implementation of amendments to the
STCW Convention and the STCW Code. The STCW Convention is not selfimplementing; therefore, the Coast Guard does not have discretion and must issue
regulations to implement these requirements. Failure to meet the treaty obligations could
cause the United States to lose status on the IMO’s “White List,” which distinguishes
administrations that are in full compliance with the STCW Convention and the STCW
Code. Because the Coast Guard must implement the training requirements outlined in the
2016 amendments and does not propose to implement any discretionary requirements as a
part of this proposed rule, we have not examined any alternatives to the proposed rule.
7. Conclusion.
We are interested in the potential impacts from this proposed rule on small
entities and we request public comment on these potential impacts. If you think that this
proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on you, your business, or your
organization, please submit a comment to the docket at the address under ADDRESSES
in the interim rule. In your comment, explain why, how, and to what degree you think
this proposed rule will have an economic impact on you.
C.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this
proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the
rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action

of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small
Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually
and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on
actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
D.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for a revised collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 ̶ 3520. As defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring,
posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information
collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of
the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection.
Title: Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW), 1995, 1997 and 2010 Amendments to the International Convention
OMB Control Number: 1625-0079
Summary of the Collection of Information:
The STCW Convention establishes minimum standards of training, certification
and watchkeeping for seafarers. The United States is a signatory to the STCW
convention, which defines standards of competence necessary to ensure safety of life at
sea and the marine environment and addresses the responsibilities of signatories to ensure
seafarers meet standards of competence. The information collection requirements are
necessary to implement the STCW Convention.

Under the existing information collection, OMB Control Number 1625-0079, the
Coast Guard collects information from owners and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger
ships, and ratings and officers serving on these ships, as well as training centers. The
proposed rule would add additional requirements to the existing collection of information
in order to implement the passenger ship training requirements of the STCW Convention.
These additional collection of information requirements would: (1) require the owners
and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger ships that carry 12 passengers or more on
international voyages to provide documentary evidence that officers, ratings, and
personnel serving on these ships have completed passenger ship emergency
familiarization, (2) require owners and operators of U.S.-flagged passenger ships that
carry 12 passengers or more on international voyages to provide documentary evidence
that ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention have
completed crowd management training, and (3) require training providers to document
course completion or disenrollment for crowd management training.63
Need for Information: The additional collection of information in the proposed
rule would ensure that: (1) passenger ship personnel are trained to adequately assist
passengers in the case of an emergency, (2) mariners have proof of completion of training
necessary for compliance with the STCW Convention, and (3) the United States can
verify and demonstrate that it has in place national regulations which implement the
STCW Convention and the STCW Code, as is required of a signatory to the convention.
Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use the additional
collection of information in the proposed rule to help to ensure compliance with
international requirements and to maintain acceptable quality in activities associated with
training and assessment of merchant mariners.
As of March 24, 2014, each school with an approved course must keep records for at least 5 years after
the end of each student's completion or disenrollment from a course or program (46 CFR 10.403). Training
providers are not expected to keep additional records under this collection of information, only to continue
to keep the records already required.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are owners and operators of
U.S.-flagged passenger ships that carry 12 passengers or more on international voyages
and training providers offering crowd management courses.
Number of Respondents: The additional collection of information in this
proposed rule would affect an estimated 37 passenger ship operating companies that carry
12 or more passengers on international voyages. These companies would have to
document completion of passenger ship emergency familiarization for all personnel
serving aboard their ships and retain documentation of a crowd management course for
the ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention serving
aboard their ships.
Frequency of Response: Operating companies of U.S.-flagged passenger ships
that carry 12 or more passengers on international voyages would be required to submit
the additional information when it is requested during a PSC inspection. The required
passenger ship emergency familiarization and crowd management training records would
be recorded at completion, to be available upon request.
Burden of Response: According to the current collection of information, a
management level officer spends about 0.083 hours (5 minutes) to document evidence of
mariners’ training on behalf of a ship owner or operator for each of the two crews. Given
this training is delivered twice for each crew, we estimate that a management level officer
will spend 0.166 hours (10 minutes) to document evidence of this training each year.
Accordingly, we estimate that the proposed passenger ship emergency familiarization
would increase the burden hour of the existing collection of information by
approximately 17 hours annually (50 ships × 0.166 hours per response × 2 crews = 16.6
hours).
Also, according to the existing collection of information, a technical specialist
spends about 0.083 hours (5 minutes) to document training records for personnel serving

aboard passenger ships. Given that this proposed rule expands the applicability of the
crowd management training to ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the
STCW Convention as a subset of the overall mariner population, and operating
companies already record STCW training completion for this population, this creates a
negligible increase in the amount of time required to document training records.
The existing collection of information for training providers shows that an
administrative specialist spends about 1 hour to document course completion, including a
student’s performance. However, because this action is taken once annually for each
approved course, this would not increase the estimated burden for training providers,
although this rule may minimally increase the number of students taking a crowd
management course.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The total estimated burden hours for this
proposed rule is approximately 17 hours for operating companies of U.S.-flagged
passenger ships that carry 12 or more passengers providing documentary evidence of
having completed passenger ship emergency familiarization.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this proposed rule to
OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information to help us
determine, among other things—
•

How useful the information is;

•

Whether the information can help us better perform our functions;

•

How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information;

•

Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;

•

How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;

•

How valid our methods are for determining the burden of collection; and

•

How we can minimize the burden of collection.

If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them to both the
OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of
information requirements in this proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast
Guard’s request to collect this information.
E.

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our
analysis is as follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation
by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all the categories covered in 46 U.S.C.
7101, 7306, 7313 and 8101 addressing personnel qualifications, and manning of ships,
and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source
of a ship’s obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. See,
e.g., United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (finding that the states are foreclosed
from regulating tanker ships) see also Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157
(1978) (state regulation is preempted where “the scheme of federal regulation may be so
pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to
supplement it [or where] the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal
interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement
of state laws on the same subject.” (Citations omitted). Therefore, because the States

may not regulate within these categories, this rule is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a ship’s obligations, the Coast
Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making
regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with
State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed
rule would have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or
email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this preamble.
F.

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local,
or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted
for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in
this preamble.
G.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
H.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not
an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or
risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
J.

Indian Tribal Governments

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use).
We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it
is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
L.

Technical Standard

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15
U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory
activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of
why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications

of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and
related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
M.

Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f),
and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions
that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically
excluded under paragraphs L54 and L56 of Appendix A, table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023–01, Rev. 1.64 Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations that are editorial or
procedural and paragraph L56 pertains to regulations concerning the training, qualifying,
licensing, and disciplining of maritime personnel.
This proposed rule involves implementation of the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code particularly concerning requirements for personnel serving on passenger
ships on international voyages. In particular, the STCW Convention and the STCW
Code requires passenger ship emergency familiarization and crowd management training
to promote the safety of life at sea in the case of an emergency. We seek any comments

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-00101%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf (last visited 6/29/2023).
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 11
Incorporation by reference, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Schools, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 12
Incorporation by reference, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46
CFR parts 11 and 12 as follows:
PART 11—REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46
U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 89; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, and 70105; E.O.
10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4. Section 11.107 is also issued
under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. Revise § 11.102 to read as follows:
§11.102 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of
the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All
approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Merchant
Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC) and at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact the Coast Guard, CG-MMC at U.S. Coast Guard, Stop
7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, 202-3722357, MMCPolicy@uscg.mil. For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-

register/cfr/ibr-locations. The material may be obtained from the sources in the following
paragraphs of this section.
(b) International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4 Albert Embankment, London
SE1 7SR, England, +44 (0)20 7735 7611, sales@imo.org, https://imo.org.
(1) The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, 2017 Edition (the STCW Convention or the STCW),
IBR approved for §§ 11.201(h); 11.426(c); 11.427(f); 11.428(c); 11.429(d); 11.493(e);
11.495(e); 11.497(c); 11.553(d); 11.555(e); 11.1001(a); 11.1003(a); 11.1009(c); and
11.1105(a).
(2) The Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code, 2017 Edition
(the STCW Code), IBR approved for §§ 11.201(h); 11.301(a) and (f); 11.302(a), (c), and
(d); 11.303(a) through (d); 11.305(a), (c), and (e); 11.307(a), (c), and (e); 11.309(a), (d,)
and (e); 11.311(a), (c), and (d); 11.313(a), (c), and (d); 11.315(a), (c), and (d); 11.317(a),
(c), and (d); 11.319(a), (c), and (d); 11.321(a), (c), and (d); 11.325(a), (c), and (d);
11.327(a), (c), and (d); 11.329(a), (d), and (e); 11.331(a), (d), and (e); 11.333(a), (c), and
(d); 11.335(a) through (c); 11.604; 11.901(c); 11.1001(a); 11.1003(a); and 11.1105(a).
(3) The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS),
incorporation by reference approved for § 11.601.
§ 11.305 [Amended]
3. Amend § 11.305 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (e), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.305(e), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A-II/2 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.307 [Amended]
4. Amend § 11.307 as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (e), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.307(e), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A-II/2 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.309 [Amended]
5. Amend § 11.309 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (e), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.309(e), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A-II/1 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.311 [Amended]
6. Amend § 11.311 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.311(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/2 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.313 [Amended]
7. Amend § 11.313 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.313(d), after the text “not previously
satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/2 of the STCW Code (incorporated
by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.315 [Amended]
8. Amend § 11.315 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and

b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.315(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/2 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.317 [Amended]
9. Amend § 11.317 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.317(d), after the text “not previously
satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/3 of the STCW Code (incorporated
by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.319 [Amended]
10. Amend § 11.319 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.319(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/1 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.321 [Amended]
11. Amend § 11.321 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.321(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/3 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.325 [Amended]
12. Amend § 11.325 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.325(d), after the text “not

previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–III/2 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.327 [Amended]
13. Amend § 11.327 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.327(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–III/2 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
14. Amend § 11.329 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (e), in table 1 to § 11.329, revise the footnotes.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 11.329 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as Officer in Charge of
an Engineering Watch (OICEW) in a manned engineroom or designated duty
engineer in a periodically unmanned engineroom on vessels powered by main
propulsion machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP propulsion power or more (operational
level).
*****
(e) * * *
Table 1 to § 11.329(e)—STCW Endorsement as OICEW in a Manned Engine Room or
Designated Duty Engineer in a Periodically Unmanned Engine Room on Vessels
Powered by Main Propulsion Machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP Propulsion Power or More
[Operational level]
Entry path from national
endorsements

Sea service 1

*******

*******

Competence—
STCW Table
A–III/1 2
*******

Training
required by
this section 3
*******

Designated duty engineer, 3,000
kW/4,000 HP4
Designated duty engineer, 750
kW/1,000 HP4

12 months

Yes

Yes

24 months

Yes

Yes

This column provides the minimum additional service required of the seafarer in order to meet the
requirements of this section.
Complete any items in paragraph (a)(3) of this section not previously satisfied in accordance with section
A-III/1 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).
3 Complete any items in paragraph (a)(4) of this section not previously satisfied.
4 STCW certificate should be limited to vessels less than 500 GRT.
§ 11.331 [Amended]
15. Amend § 11.331 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (e), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.331(e), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text in accordance with section A-III/3 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
§ 11.333 [Amended]
16. Amend § 11.333 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 11.333(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A-III/3 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 11.102).”
Subpart K—Officers and Personnel on a Passenger Ship When on an International
Voyage
17. Revise § 11.1105 to read as follows:
§ 11.1105 General requirements.
(a) To serve on a passenger ship on international voyages, before being assigned
shipboard duties, masters, deck officers, chief engineers, and engineer officers must meet
the appropriate requirements of the STCW Regulation V/2 and of section A-V/2 of the
STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102) as follows:
(1) Officers and personnel must have completed passenger ship emergency
familiarization appropriate to their capacity, duties, and responsibilities as specified in
section A-V/2 paragraph 1 of the STCW Code.

(2) Officers and personnel providing direct service to passengers in passenger
spaces must have completed passenger ship safety training specified in section A-V/2
paragraph 2 of the STCW Code.
(3) Masters, officers, ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the
STCW Convention, and personnel designated on muster lists to assist passengers in
emergency situations must have completed approved or accepted training in passenger
ship crowd management specified in section A-V/2 paragraph 3 of the STCW Code.
(4) Masters, chief engineer officers, chief mates, second engineer officers, and
any person designated on muster lists as having responsibility for the safety of passengers
in emergency situations onboard passenger ships must have completed approved or
accepted training in crisis management and human behavior as specified in section A-V/2
paragraph 4 of the STCW Code.
(5) Masters, chief engineer officers, chief mates, second engineer officers, and
every person assigned immediate responsibility for embarking and disembarking
passengers, loading, discharging, or securing cargo, or closing hull openings onboard roro passenger ships must have completed approved or accepted training in passenger
safety, cargo safety, and hull integrity as specified in section A-V/2 paragraph 5 of the
STCW Code.
(b) Personnel required to be trained in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section must hold documentary evidence of successful completion of training as proof of
meeting these requirements.
(c) Personnel required to be trained in accordance with paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4),
or (a)(5) of this section must provide, at intervals not exceeding 5 years, evidence of
maintaining the standard of competence.

(d) The Coast Guard will accept onboard training and experience, through
evidence of 1 year of relevant seagoing service within the last 5 years, as meeting the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) Personnel serving onboard small passenger ships engaged in domestic, nearcoastal voyages, as defined in § 10.107 of this subchapter, are not subject to any
obligation for the purpose of this STCW requirement.
PART 12—REQUIREMENTS FOR RATING ENDORSEMENTS
18. The authority citation for part 12 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7301, 7302, 7303-7316,
7503, 7505, 7701, and 70105; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
19. Revise § 12.103 to read as follows:
§ 12.103 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of
the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All
approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Merchant
Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC) and at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact Coast Guard, CG-MMC at U.S. Coast Guard, Stop
7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, 202-3722357, MMCPolicy@uscg.mil. For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations. The material may be obtained from the sources in the following
paragraphs of this section.
(b) International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4 Albert Embankment, London
SE1 7SR, England; + 44(0)20 7735 7611; sales@imo.org; www.imo.org.
(1) The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, 2017 Edition (the STCW Convention or the STCW),
IBR approved for §§ 12.811(a) and 12.905(a).

(2) The Seafarers’ Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code, 2017 Edition
(the STCW Code); IBR approved for §§ 12.601(b); 12.602(a), (c), and (d); 12.603(a), (c),
and (d); 12.605(a) through (c); 12.607(a) and (c)); 12.609(a) through (c); 12.611(a)
through (c); 12.613(a) and (b); 12.615(a) and (b); 12.617(a) and (b); 12.619(a);
12.621(a); 12.623(b); 12.811(a); and 12.905(a).
§ 12.603 [Amended]
20. Amend § 12.603 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the text “of this part”;
b. In paragraph (d), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 12.603(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/4 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 12.103).”; and
c. In paragraph (d), footnote 3 to Table 1 to § 12.603(d), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with section A–II/5 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 12.103).”
§ 12.605 [Amended]
21. Amend § 12.605 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (c), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 12.605(c), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with Table A-II/4 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 12.103).”
§ 12.607 [Amended]
22. In § 12.607(a)(4), remove the text “of this part”.
§ 12.609 [Amended]
23. Amend § 12.609 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (c), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 12.609(c), after the text “not

previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with Table A–III/4 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 12.103).”
§ 12.611 [Amended]
24. Amend § 12.611 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), remove the text “of this part”; and
b. In paragraph (c), footnote 2 to Table 1 to § 12.611(c), after the text “not
previously satisfied,” add the text “in accordance with Table A–III/7 of the STCW Code
(incorporated by reference, see § 12.103).
25. Revise the subpart heading to subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I— Ratings and Personnel on a Passenger Ship When on an International
Voyage
§ 12.901 [Amended]
26. In § 12.901, remove the word “part” and add, in its place, the word “subpart”.
27. Revise § 12.905 to read as follows:
§ 12.905 General requirements.
(a) To serve on a passenger ship on an international voyage, before being assigned
shipboard duties, personnel must meet the appropriate requirements in STCW Regulation
V/2 and section A-V/2 of the STCW Code (both incorporated by reference, see § 12.103)
as follows:
(1) All personnel must have completed passenger ship emergency familiarization
appropriate to their capacity, duties, and responsibilities as specified in section A-V/2
paragraph 1 of the STCW Code.
(2) Personnel providing direct service to passengers in passenger spaces must
have completed the passenger ship safety training specified in section A-V/2 paragraph 2
of the STCW Code.

(3) Ratings qualified under Chapters II, III, and VII of the STCW Convention
and personnel designated on the muster list to assist passengers in emergency situations
must have completed approved or accepted training in passenger ship crowd management
specified in section A-V/2 paragraph 3 of the STCW Code.
(4) Personnel designated on muster lists as having responsibility for the safety of
passengers in emergency situations onboard passenger ships must have completed
approved or accepted training in crisis management and human behavior as specified in
section A-V/2 paragraph 4 of the STCW Code.
(5) Personnel assigned immediate responsibility for embarking and disembarking
passengers, loading, discharging, or securing cargo, or closing hull openings onboard roro passenger ships must have completed approved or accepted training in passenger
safety, cargo safety, and hull integrity as specified in section A-V/2 paragraph 5 of the
STCW Code.
(b) Personnel required to be trained in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section must hold documentary evidence of successful completion of training as proof of
meeting these requirements.
(c) Personnel required to be trained in accordance with paragraph (a)(3), (a)(4), or
(a)(5) of this section must provide, at intervals not exceeding 5 years, evidence of
maintaining the standard of competence.
(d) The Coast Guard will accept onboard training and experience, through
evidence of 1 year of relevant seagoing service within the last 5 years, as meeting the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) Personnel serving onboard small passenger vessels engaged in domestic, nearcoastal voyages, as defined in § 15.105(g)(1) of this subchapter, are not subject to any
obligation for the purpose of this STCW requirement.

Dated: June 13, 2024.
W. R. Arguin,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard,
Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-13455 Filed: 6/20/2024 8:45 am; Publication Date: 6/21/2024]