Thanks for posting the links to the EO and Fact Sheet.
To be honest the whole thing is kind of confusing. In general the EO appears to throw alot of different things together and lacks overalll clarity.
Specifically in "Section 1 - Purpose" it states that "the United States constructs less than one percent of
commercial ships globally" and then talks about the need for a "comprehensive approach that includes securing consistent, predictable, and durable Federal funding, making United States-flagged and built vessels
commercially competitive in international commerce, rebuilding America’s maritime manufacturing capabilities (the Maritime Industrial Base), and expanding and strengthening the recruitment, training, and retention of the relevant workforce."
However several sections of the EO appear to focus on the training of "Credentialed" Mariners to man ships, Harbor Maintenance Fees, Customs, Taxes and Duties, concerns that th cranes used in ports are Chinese made, the establishment of "Maritime Propserity Zones", improving "
Federal vessel procurement" (which typically aren't realy commerical vessels), deregulation, and the Inactive Reserve Fleet.
In generall, to me at least there appears to be some degree of conflating "Mariners" and graduates from maritime academies with a "shipyard labor force. Overall there may be some overlap, but I believe a lot of the core laborers in many shipyards aren't maritime school grads, but are rather tradesmen and women who have learned trades of welding, pipe fitting, HVAC installlation, cable installation/practical electrical engineering, and other such trades.
Overall the sections that seem to most directy deal with actual commerciall shipbuilding seem to be Sections 12 and 17, where Section 12 notes several already existing programs such as the Maritime Administration's (MARAD's) "Tanker Security Program, Cable Security Fleet, Maritime Security Programs, Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program, Title XI, Assistance to Small Shipyards, Port Infrastructure Development Program, the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), and programs that support the State Maritime Academies" as well as "existing domestic cargo preference laws, including the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904, as amended, (10 U.S.C. 2631) and the Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as amended".
And Section 17 talks about deveoping a plan to "ensure that adequate cubed footage and gross tonnage of United States-flagged commercial vessels can be called upon in times of crisis, while limiting the likelihood of Government waste" and providing "incentives that will:
(i) grow the fleet of United States built, crewed, and flagged vessels that serve as readily deployable assets for national security purposes; and
(ii) increase the participation of United States commercial vessels in international trade; and
(c) enhances existing subsidies to include coverage of certain construction or modification costs in a manner designed to enhance incentives for the commercial shipping industry to operate militarily useful ships that trade internationally under the flag of the United States."
To be honest, much of this has already been done in the past and/or are aready ongoing (as evidenced by the program noted in Section 12).
As such, its reallly unclear, what this EO is really expected to accomplish other than callling for several studies and such.
In addition, one of the things that kind of seems missing from the EO to me is that while it talks about "component supply chains" I didn't really see anything about "proprietary information". Specifically on probably most all commerical ships now a days a shipyard may do the structural work but items like the propulsion plant, auxiliary machinery, deck equipment, Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning, and even Outfit/Furnishings may be designed, constructed and supplied to the yard by outside vendors. And some yards even also subcontract things like painting or Aluminum construction work to other facilities.
As such, while the EO talks about the need to " identify key maritime components in the supply chain that are essential for rebuilding and expanding the Maritime Industrial Base and that should be prioritized for investment" its unclear to me whether having a facility that can license build components that were designed overseas (and which may already be in service on numerous ships) is OK or is it the intent of the Government that the US also needs to have the ability to "develope and modify/improve" the design of these subcomponents on their own, where "license building" would imply the need to pay a licensing fee overseas for any components built.
In the end, after reading/reviewing the EO I'm more or less lleft with the impression that there will likely be some studies and potentially up-funding of programs for loans and subsidies to yards and ship owners for a while, but I see very little that seems to likelly change much anything about getting significantly more ships built in the US.
