{"id":874,"date":"2026-10-01T11:43:41","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T11:43:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/regulasshipping.com\/blog\/us-coast-guard-proposes-dropping-six-extra-stcw-course-requirements\/"},"modified":"2026-10-01T11:43:41","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T11:43:41","slug":"us-coast-guard-proposes-dropping-six-extra-stcw-course-requirements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regulasshipping.com\/blog\/us-coast-guard-proposes-dropping-six-extra-stcw-course-requirements\/","title":{"rendered":"US Coast Guard proposes dropping six extra STCW course requirements"},"content":{"rendered":"

The US Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking on Thursday, 1 October, that would take six training and assessment requirements out of the merchant-mariner credential rules for certain STCW endorsements. The document is \u201cClarification of Certain Mariner Training Requirements,\u201d 91 FR 62383, docket USCG-2025-0392, RIN 1625-AC48, amending 46 CFR parts 11 and 12. Comments close on 30 December 2026. John Gallagher\u2019s same-day Seatrade Maritime write-through is the industry read of that Federal Register package. The NPRM, and not Friday\u2019s already-covered passenger-ship emergency-familiarization final rule, is the primary for this note. It is not in force. It does not change crowd-management or passenger-ship familiarization from 26 October, and it does not rewrite STCW for officers on ships of 500 GT or more or on ocean routes.<\/p>\n

The Coast Guard\u2019s own summary is blunt. The six items were added in the 2013 final rule that implemented the 2010 Manila amendments. They are not required by US statute or by the minimum STCW Convention and Code standards for the endorsements in question. After a review tied to Executive Orders 14219 and 14192, the agency now says they are unnecessary for the safe operation of the applicable vessels. Seatrade recorded the longer Washington arc: a 2018 draft that was never published, a pause through the Biden years, and a second-Trump-administration NPRM that grew from three proposed deletions at about $2 million a year to six deletions at an estimated $6.1 million a year in annualised savings.<\/p>\n

The six deletions are endorsement-specific. Leadership and managerial skills training would come out of original and renewal STCW endorsements as Master of vessels of less than 500 GT limited to near-coastal waters, 46 CFR 11.317(a)(3)(v) and (b)(1). Bridge resource management training would come out of original OICNW on the same size and route, 11.321(a)(3)(iv). Demonstration of competence in leadership and teamworking skills would come out of original and renewal OICNW on that same ticket, 11.321(b)(1). Engineering Terminology and Shipboard Operations training would come out of OICEW in a manned engineroom and DDE in a periodically unmanned engineroom on ships of 750 kW\/1,000 HP or more, 11.329(a)(4)(v). Computer Systems and Maintenance and High Voltage Power Systems courses would come out of Electro-technical Rating on the same power band, 12.611(a)(4)(i) and (ii). Radar Observer, ECDIS where fitted, and the rest of the remaining STCW boxes on those sections stay.<\/p>\n

The Coast Guard\u2019s safety case is manning, not a general STCW retreat<\/h2>\n

For the deck tickets under 500 GT on near-coastal waters, the agency\u2019s argument is the bridge team. Those ships typically have one credentialed watchstander who is OICNW, helmsman and lookout. LMS, BRM and LTW are team-management products. The Coast Guard says they exceed STCW for this operational-level, near-coastal, sub-500 GT officer and do not improve safety on a one-person bridge. The same LMS and BRM courses, and the LTW standard, remain valid for deck officers on ships of 500 GT or more, or on ocean routes, who lead multi-person bridge teams. That distinction matters for a company that mixes a near-coastal towing or small-passenger ticket with an oceans mate. The oceans or 500 GT-and-over endorsement is not in this NPRM.<\/p>\n

For ETSO, the argument is redundancy. An OICEW or DDE candidate on 750 kW-plus already needs at least 1,080 days of engine service, plus practical assessments and a written examination. The Coast Guard says foundational engineering terminology and routine shipboard engineering functions are already acquired in that service and tested there, so a separate approved course is an undue burden without a corresponding safety benefit. STCW does not require that extra course at the operational level.<\/p>\n

For electro-technical ratings, the argument is supervision. An ETR is not authorised to work on computer equipment or high-voltage power systems except under a credentialed officer who directs and primarily performs the work. CSM and HVPS courses, the Coast Guard says, go beyond the ETR skillset and responsibility and also exceed STCW. 46 CFR part 15 currently has no vessel manning requirement for an ETR on any ship, so the regulatory analysis cannot estimate how many mariners take those two courses or what they cost. The deletion is still in the proposal. The dollar figures below do not include it.<\/p>\n

Technical clean-up rides along. Section 11.317 currently lists Radar Observer twice; one instance would be deleted and the remaining paragraphs redesignated. Language that referred to a one-time post-1 January 2017 renewal standard would come out of 11.317(b) and 11.321(b) because that date has passed. A mariner who held the endorsement and has not renewed it since 2017 would not, if a final rule is published, need LMS to reinstate. ECDIS training, if serving on a ship with the equipment, would still be required on renewal. Authority citations in part 11 would be tidied. None of that is a new competency.<\/p>\n

The money is real for mariners; the rule is not yet a credentialing change<\/h2>\n

The regulatory analysis uses National Maritime Center data for 2022\u20132024. An average of 825 mariners a year sit in the counted groups: about 172 original Masters under 500 GT near-coastal for LMS, 25 original OICNW for BRM, 168 for LTW (the table\u2019s renewal OICNW average is 84 a year in one presentation and 168 in the executive summary\u2019s 825-person stack; operators should read the table, not the round number, when they size a crewing budget), and 460 original OICEW for ETSO. Annualised savings at a 7 percent discount are about $991,977 for LMS, $98,545 for BRM, $83,094 for LTW, $4,920,634 for ETSO, and $1,947 for the federal government, or about $6.10 million a year. Ten-year discounted savings are about $42.82 million. Perpetual annualised savings in 2024 dollars are about $3.83 million. ETSO is most of the money because the course is the expensive one and the population is the large one. The Coast Guard assumes mariners, and in some cases their employers, pay tuition, travel, lodging, meals and the opportunity cost of time. It asks for comment on how often companies actually subsidise the courses. Training providers would lose some revenue; the small-entity analysis says the loss should be limited.<\/p>\n

OMB has not designated the proposal as a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. If finalised as proposed, it is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. It imposes no new costs. It also does not, today, let a mariner skip a course that is still in 46 CFR. National Maritime Center evaluators will keep asking for the 2013 certificates until a final rule is published and effective. A company that drops LMS or ETSO from a cadet pipeline on the strength of an NPRM will produce an incomplete MMC packet. Comments go to regulations.gov on USCG-2025-0392, and collection-of-information comments also go to OIRA, by 30 December 2026. The contact in the document is Megan Johns Henry in the Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing.<\/p>\n

Do not fold this file into the 25 September passenger-ship final rule. That instrument, docket USCG-2022-0649, RIN 1625-AC68, 91 FR 60846, is already on the blog. It requires passenger-ship emergency familiarization for all shipboard personnel on US-flag passenger ships carrying more than 12 passengers on international voyages, and it expands crowd-management training to specified ratings, from 26 October 2026. This 1 October NPRM does not touch those V\/2 boxes. It does not put a foreign-flag officer under Coast Guard course approval. It does not change STCW for a 500 GT oceans mate, a management-level master on a deep-sea hull, or an engineering officer who still needs the remaining approved courses in 11.329. It also does not create a manning requirement for electro-technical ratings. A DPA who treats \u201csix courses gone\u201d as a fleet-wide STCW holiday will have misread the endorsement list.<\/p>\n

What Operators Should Note<\/h2>\n