[Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76295-76318]
[DOCID:fr16de08-21]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 160, 161, 164, and 165

[USCG-2005-21869]
RIN 1625-AA99

Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and
Automatic Identification System

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to expand the applicability of
notice of arrival and departure (NOAD) and automatic identification
system (AIS) requirements to more commercial vessels. This proposed
rule would expand the applicability of notice of arrival (NOA)
requirements to additional vessels, establish a separate requirement
for certain vessels to submit notices of departure (NOD), set forth a
mandatory method for electronic submission of NOA and NOD, and modify
related reporting content, timeframes, and procedures. This proposed
rule would also expand the applicability of AIS requirements, beyond
Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) areas, to all U.S. navigable waters and
require AIS carriage for additional commercial vessels. These proposed
changes would improve navigation safety, enhance the Coast Guard's
ability to identify and track vessels, heighten our overall maritime
domain awareness, and thus help us address threats to maritime
transportation safety and security and mitigate the possible harm from
such threats.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before April 15, 2009. Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB
on or before April 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2005-21869 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You must also send comments on collection of information discussed
in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this NPRM (VI. D.) to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget. To ensure that the comments are received on time, the preferred
method is by e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(the subject line of
the e-mail must include the docket number and Attention: Desk Officer
for Coast Guard, DHS) or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternate, though
slower, method is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
    You may inspect the material proposed for incorporation by
reference at room 1409, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-372-1563. Copies of the material are available as indicated in the
``Incorporation by Reference'' section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on the NOAD
portion of this proposed rule, contact Lieutenant Sharmine Jones,
Office of Vessel Activities (CG-543), Coast Guard,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on the AIS portion of this proposed rule, contact Mr. Jorge
Arroyo, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-5413), Coast Guard,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing material in the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Background and Purpose
    A. Threat to the Marine Transportation System
    B. Notice of Arrival and Departure
    C. Automatic Identification System
    D. AIS Displays and Integration
    E. Maritime Domain Awareness
    F. Nationwide AIS
III. Regulatory History
    A. Notice of Arrival
    B. Automatic Identification System
    C. Expansion of AIS Carriage
IV. Discussion of Comments Received on Expansion of AIS Carriage
    A. Need for AIS and Scope of Availability
    B. Reason AIS Requirement Was Not Expanded to All Vessels
    C. Use of AIS Class B Devices
    D. Deviation From AIS Requirements
    E. Relation of Coast Guard AIS Receiving Infrastructure to
Requirement for AIS in All Waters
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. NOAD Revisions
    B. AIS Revisions
    C. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analysis
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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

Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AC Alternating Current
AIS Automatic Identification System
AOR Area of Responsibility
API American Petroleum Institute
APIS Advance Passenger Information System
ARPA Advanced Radar Plotting Aid
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CDC Certain Dangerous Cargo
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COP Common Operating Picture
COTP Captain of the Port
CSTDMA Carrier-sense Time Division Multiple Access
DGPS Differential Global Positioning System

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System
ECS Electronic Chart System
eNOAD Electronic Notice of Arrival and Departure
FCC Federal Communications Commission
GPS Global Positioning System
GT Gross Registered Tons
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
IRVMC Inland River Vessel Movement Center
ISM International Safety Management
ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security
ISSC International Ship Security Certificate
ITU International Telecommunications Union
MDA Maritime Domain Awareness
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MKD Minimal Keyboard Display
MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identity
MTS Marine Transportation System
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAIS Nationwide Automatic Identification System
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NOA Notice of Arrival
NOAD Notice of Arrival and Departure
NOD Notice of Departure
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NVMC National Vessel Movement Center
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSRV Oil Spill Response Vessel
PV Present Value
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
RA Regulatory Assessment
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTCM Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Sector Command Center
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
U.S.C. United States Code
USCS United States Customs Service
VSL Value of Statistical Life
VTC Vessel Traffic Center
VTS Vessel Traffic Service

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2005-21869), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES, but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-2005-21869) in the Docket ID box, and click
enter. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We plan to hold one public meeting in Washington, DC. The date,
time, and location will be announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register. You may submit a request for additional public meetings under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
additional public meetings would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one
or more at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

II. Background and Purpose

    This section discusses threats to the maritime transportation
system, and provides background information on the elements of notice
of arrival and departure (NOAD) and the automatic identification system
(AIS). This section also discusses maritime domain awareness, the
Nationwide AIS project, and the role NOAD and AIS will play in
increasing our understanding of the maritime domain.

A. Threat to the Marine Transportation System

    A terrorist attack against the U.S. marine transportation system
(MTS) has the potential to inflict a disastrous impact on global
shipping, international trade, and the world economy. Waterborne
commerce enters the United States through more than 360 ports,
transiting over 26,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways,
carried by more than 8,000 foreign vessels, making more than 50,000
port calls a year. Over six million cruise ship passengers travel
annually from U.S. ports, and domestic ferries transport over 180
million passengers annually. At any given time, we estimate that over
5,000 commercial vessels are within 2,000 nautical miles or 96 hours of
our shores.
    Threats to our MTS can come from a variety of scenarios. Use of
explosive-laden small boats to attack larger vessels to cause injury
and loss of life has already been demonstrated in the cases of the USS
COLE and the MT LIMBURG. The use of an explosive device on a commercial
ferry was also demonstrated when, in August 2005, several persons were
killed and dozens of others were injured after a bomb exploded on the
M/V DONA RAMONA in the Philippines. Other possible terrorist scenarios
include use of maritime transportation routes to smuggle weapons of
mass destruction or terrorists into the United States. In December
1999, a person planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport
was arrested at Port Angeles, WA, after he got off a ferry arriving
from Canada and customs agents discovered explosives in the trunk of
his car. The large geographic area that is occupied by U.S. waterways,
combined with the high volume of commercial and recreational

vessel traffic on those waterways, presents enormous challenges for
preventing terrorist incidents.
    The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, along with maritime-
related terrorist events listed in the paragraph above, call attention
to the vulnerability of the United States to potential terrorist
attacks. U.S. waterways and ports present both vulnerable and
attractive targets, as well as a means of transportation for
terrorists. The Coast Guard, working with other international,
national, State, and local agencies, has acted to identify and counter
the threat to our MTS. In an effort to ensure that we make the most
cost-effective use of our resources and funding, we have identified the
need for a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of all activities
in our maritime domain as key to preventing a terrorist attack.

B. Notice of Arrival and Departure

    Under 33 CFR part 160, owners, agents, masters, operators, or
persons in charge of vessels must file notices of arrival (NOA) before
such vessels enter a U.S. port. The Coast Guard's NOA requirements had
been in effect for decades before the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Vessels over 300 gross tons submitted pre-arrival notices directly to
the applicable arriving port only 24 hours in advance. On October 4,
2001, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule under the
authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221-
1232), increasing the submission time for a notice of arrival (NOA)
from 24 to 96 hours prior to arriving at a U.S. port or place; required
centralized submissions of this information to the National Vessel
Movement Center (NVMC); temporarily suspended exemptions from reporting
requirements for some groups of vessels; and required submission of
passenger, crew, and cargo information. See 66 FR 50565 (Oct. 4, 2001).
    The information in notices of arrival provides the Coast Guard with
valuable data for screening vessels for safety and security purposes.
We have no current regulation in place, however, to capture vessel,
crew, passenger, or specific cargo information on vessels 300 gross
tons or less intending to arrive at or depart from U.S. ports or places
unless they are arriving with certain dangerous cargo (CDC) or are
arriving at a port or place in the Seventh Coast Guard District--which
includes South Carolina, most of Georgia and Florida, and the island
possessions of the United States pertaining to Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. See 33 CFR 160.203(b)(1) and 160.210(c). This proposed
rule would expand the applicability for NOADs to further enhance
homeland security by increasing our awareness of vessels and people
entering or departing U.S. ports or places.
    We propose to eliminate the current 300-gross-tons threshold
exception and to require NOADs from all foreign commercial vessels
departing to or coming from a port or place in the United States and
all U.S. commercial vessels coming to a U.S. port or place from a
foreign port. Requiring more vessels to report a NOAD will allow the
Coast Guard to screen more vessels for safety and security purposes
well in advance of an arrival, thereby enhancing the safety and
security of our ports and waterways.

C. Automatic Identification System

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
(MTSA), Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064, mandates that automatic
identification systems (AIS) be installed and operating on most
commercial vessels on navigable waters of the United States. See 46
U.S.C. 70114.
    AIS automatically broadcasts dynamic, static, and voyage-related
vessel information that is received by other AIS-equipped stations. AIS
has achieved acceptance through worldwide adoption of performance and
technical standards developed by diverse international bodies, such as
the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), that ensure commonality, universality, and
interoperability. Further, installation of such equipment is required
on vessels subject to the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974, (SOLAS), as amended. See specifically SOLAS, Chapter
V, regulation 19.2.4. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/enav/ais/
SOLAS.V.19.2.1-5.pdf.
    In ship-to-ship mode, AIS provides essential information to other
vessels, such as name, position, course, and speed, that is not readily
available on board vessels. In the ship-to-shore mode, AIS allows for
the efficient exchange of vessel traffic information that previously
was only available via voice communications with a VTS. In either mode,
AIS enhances the mariner's situational awareness, makes possible the
accurate exchange of navigational information, mitigates the risk of
collision through reliable passing arrangements, facilitates vessel
traffic management while simultaneously reducing voice radiotelephone
transmissions, and enhances maritime domain awareness (MDA).
    For further information and background on AIS, see 68 FR 39353,
39355 (July 1, 2003); 68 FR 60559, 60560 (Oct. 22, 2003); or visit
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/enav.

D. AIS Displays and Integration

    Shipboard AIS devices are divided into two classes. AIS Class A
devices come with a minimal keyboard display (MKD) that allows the user
to input AIS information (e.g., vessel identity, dimensions, navigation
status, and antenna location) and to access all information received
from other devices. AIS Class B devices require this input to be pre-
programmed into the device. For further discussion of AIS Class A and
Class B, their differences and similarities, see Section IV, Discussion
of Comments below. Both types of shipboard AIS allow multiple input-
output and display (presentation) options that facilitate using or
integrating AIS data on other navigational systems, such as radar,
Advanced Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA), Electronic Chart Display and
Information System (ECDIS), and Electronic Chart System (ECS).
    The greatest benefits of AIS will be achieved by its widest use,
both by the number of vessels that use it and its integration and
synergy with other shipboard systems. Although we encourage full
integration of AIS with all navigation systems, this proposed rule
would not require such integration because of the current limited
availability of type-approved equipment that can readily and reliably
integrate AIS and these other systems (e.g., ECDIS, ARPA, radar, and
chart plotters). We caution mariners who seek to integrate the
equipment on their own, particularly on non type-approved equipment.
This view is also set forth in recommendations by the Transportation
Research Board's ``Special Report 272, Shipboard Automatic
Identification System: Meeting the Needs of the Mariners''; see http://
fermat.nap.edu/catalog/10708.html.
    The Conference Report accompanying the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293) states ``[we] should
require the AIS system information to be integrated with the electronic
chart display.'' See H. Conf. Rep. No. 108-617, at 82 (July 20, 2004).
Section 410 of this Act mandates that electronic charts be installed
and operational on basically the same vessel population mandated to
have AIS under the MTSA. The Coast Guard expects to implement this
electronic chart mandate and address

the display of AIS on electronic charts through a separate rulemaking.

E. Maritime Domain Awareness

    In October 2005, the National Security Council and Homeland
Security Council jointly published ``The National Plan to Achieve
Maritime Domain Awareness,'' (available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/
assets/HSPD_MDAPlan.pdf), a collaborative inter-agency effort in
support of the National Strategy for Maritime Security. This plan
defines MDA as the effective understanding of anything associated with
the global maritime domain that could impact the security, safety,
economy, or environment of the United States. The Plan also identifies
MDA as a key component of an active, layered maritime defense in
depth--expanding maritime boundaries.
    MDA involves both the process of receiving and analyzing data as
well as the system of technology that facilitates this process. To
maximize the employment of our resources, MDA, among other things,
requires monitoring and tracking vessels, cargo, and people. Cold War
legacy data collection capabilities must be integrated with current and
emerging capabilities and systems to provide near real-time awareness
of maritime threats.
    Our primary method for collecting AIS information will be the
Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS) network. These data
will be used in conjunction with the national maritime common operating
picture (COP). The COP is a near real-time information grid that will
be shared by all U.S. Federal, State, and local agencies with maritime
interests and responsibilities. COP data will be accessible to all
users, except when limited by security restrictions, policy, or
regulations.
    NOAD, NAIS, and AIS, when employed together, provide a major
portion of the information needed for MDA. AIS provides real-time
information on vessels that can be correlated with NOAD data to enable
us to track vessel movements in or bound for U.S. waters via NAIS COP.
    Expanding NOAD and AIS applicability broadens our sources of
information and enhances MDA. The combined NOAD and AIS information is
one critical element in the overall MDA process, along with data
collected from other various maritime and maritime-related sources.
These data streams will form part of the COP and will also then be
reviewed by analysts to identify vessels, persons, and activities that
might be suspect through a process known as anomaly detection.
    Anomaly detection assists us in the early identification of
possible terrorist or other suspicious activities, which in turn allows
us to take appropriate preventive measures to protect public safety and
economic security. This enhanced MDA would improve our ability to
prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.
    The greater synergy of NOAD and AIS is realized when they are
combined to provide a comprehensive picture of the maritime domain. The
COP uses input from various sources to provide both a visual display of
ship movements as well as a display of each vessel's accompanying
information.
    The intent of the system is to allow the Coast Guard to review the
different data elements against one another to detect anomalies. For
example, a Coast Guard unit may identify a vessel prepared to enter a
U.S. harbor. The Coast Guard unit could call up that vessel's
information and review its destination. At that time, the Coast Guard
would review the vessel's notice of arrival (NOA) and may observe that
the vessel has reported it is bound for the container docks. Later, the
AIS broadcast may indicate that the vessel did not maneuver to turn
down the channel to the container docks as expected and is instead
proceeding on a collision course with a major marine transportation
infrastructure on the other side of the harbor. In this example, the
comparison of different data sources would have allowed the Coast Guard
to recognize this anomaly in reported data, to deploy the necessary
resources, and to notify the surrounding infrastructure.
    This is just one of many scenarios that fuse NOAD and AIS data to
ensure maritime traffic is being monitored and evaluated.

F. Nationwide AIS

    In response to a Congressional mandate in 46 U.S.C. 70113(a),
emerging homeland security requirements, and the need to improve
navigational safety, the Coast Guard initiated the Nationwide AIS
(NAIS) project: a major Federal acquisition project to collect,
aggregate, and share information concerning AIS equipped vessels
operating on or bound for waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. NAIS will consist of an integrated system of AIS
equipment (e.g., base station radios, antennas), data storage,
processing, and networking infrastructure. NAIS will also be integrated
with other systems for the purpose of sharing infrastructure and
improving NAIS' overall performance.
    NAIS will process (e.g., validate and filter) and store AIS data
and make these data available for use by other existing operational
systems (e.g., COP, Sector Command Center (SCC), Marine Information for
Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE), and VTS). It is expected that these
other systems will provide data processing functions (e.g., vessel
tracking correlation, information processing, traffic analysis, and
anomaly detection) and user interfaces necessary to take full advantage
of AIS data exchange functionality. NAIS information will be displayed
in the Coast Guard's national maritime COP and shared--along with
correlated data and intelligence, as appropriate--with other entities.
Access to these NAIS data by other authorized governmental entities is
intended to enhance maritime safety and security and promote
interagency cooperation. Portions of the COP will also be available to
local port partners in support of local security and safety operations.
Some users of NAIS capabilities (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard units, other
governmental entities, and strategic port partners) may indirectly
access AIS data via other systems. Having such near real-time
information of vessels' identity, location, and cargo will be
invaluable.
    NAIS will be deployed regionally and incrementally. As of the end
of September 2008, AIS-receive coverage has been established in 58
major ports and 16 critical coastal areas across the nation under
Increment One of the NAIS project. All Coast Guard Sectors have at
least one AIS receiver site within their Area of Responsibility (AOR)
and also have the capability to view AIS vessel tracks outside their
AOR (e.g., for an adjacent CG Sector or nationwide) via the maritime
COP. Increment Two will expand our detection and surveillance
nationwide and add AIS transmit capability out to 24 nautical miles.
Finally, Increment Three will provide AIS detection and surveillance
capability out to 2,000 nautical miles. NAIS full operational
capability (i.e., AIS long range detection, system integration, data
processing and sharing, etc.) is anticipated to be achieved by 2014.

III. Regulatory History

    Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has
modified the NOA requirements for vessels numerous times and
implemented SOLAS AIS regulations and carriage requirements for AIS in
VTS waters. The summary below describes this evolution of NOA and AIS
regulations since 2001 and provides background intended to assist the
reader as we later describe existing regulations we are seeking to
revise through this proposed

rule. The summary compiles Federal Register citations in tables and
presents them in chronological order to assist those who seek to review
these past rulemaking documents or notices.

A. Notice of Arrival

    On October 4, 2001, we published a temporary final rule entitled
``Temporary Requirements for Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports'' in
the Federal Register. See 66 FR 50565. As noted previously, that
temporary rule increased the submission time for a NOA from 24 to 96
hours prior to arriving at a U.S. port or place; required centralized
submissions; temporarily suspended exemptions from reporting
requirements for some groups of vessels; and required submission of
passenger, crew, and cargo information. We extended the effective
period of that temporary rule to allow us to complete a rulemaking for
permanent changes. See 67 FR 37682 (May 30, 2002) and 67 FR 55115 (Aug.
28, 2002).
    Following a notice of proposed rulemaking published June 19, 2002,
we published a final rule on February 28, 2003, that replaced temporary
regulations and revised NOA requirements in 33 CFR part 160 by
consolidating the notice of departure (NOD) into the NOA, requiring
electronic submission of cargo manifest information to the then United
States Customs Service (USCS), and requiring additional crew and
passenger information. See 67 FR 41659 and 68 FR 9537.
    On May 22, 2003, after consultation with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), we suspended the NOA requirement for electronic
submission of cargo manifest information (Customs Form 1302) pending
further CBP regulatory action under then-recent legislation, including
the Trade Act of 2002. See 68 FR 27907.
    On August 18, 2004, we published a temporary final rule with
request for comment that changed the definition of CDC to include
ammonium nitrate and certain ammonium nitrate based fertilizers, in
bulk, as well as propylene oxide, alone or mixed with ethylene oxide,
in bulk. That temporary final rule also allowed vessels to submit
notices of arrival electronically; in this rulemaking, we propose to
make electronic methods of submission mandatory. See 69 FR 51176. On
December 16, 2005, we published an interim rule with a request for
comments that adopted the temporary final rule's definition of
``certain dangerous cargo'' to include (1) ammonium nitrate, in bulk;
(2) ammonium nitrate based fertilizers, in bulk; and (3) propylene
oxide, alone or mixed with ethylene oxide, in bulk, as well as adding
an option for vessels to submit notices of arrival electronically. See
70 FR 74663. That interim rule is part of a separate rulemaking focused
on CDC.
    Table 1 lists NOA rulemaking documents discussed above and
associated corrections.

                                            Table 1--NOA Rulemakings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                          Action                 FR cite         Title of rule  [Docket No.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/04/2001.......................  Temporary final rule.....  66 FR 50565........  Temporary Requirements for
                                                                                Notification of Arrival in
                                                                                U.S. Ports [USCG-2001-
                                                                                10689].
11/19/2001.......................  Temporary final rule;      66 FR 57877........  Do.
                                    request for comments;
                                    correction.
01/18/2002.......................  Temporary final rule;      67 FR 2571.........  Do.
                                    request for comments;
                                    correction.
05/30/2002.......................  Temporary rule; change of  67 FR 37682........  Do.
                                    effective date.
06/19/2002.......................  Notice of proposed         67 FR 41659........  Notification of Arrival in
                                    rulemaking.                                     U.S. Ports [USCG-2001-
                                                                                11865].
08/28/2002.......................  Temporary rule; change of  67 FR 55115........  Temporary Requirements for
                                    effective date.                                 Notification of Arrival in
                                                                                U.S. Ports [USCG-2001-
                                                                                10689].
02/28/2003.......................  Final rule...............  68 FR 9537.........  Notification of Arrival in
                                                                                U.S. Ports [USCG-2002-
                                                                                11865].
05/22/2003.......................  Final rule; partial        68 FR 27907........  Do.
                                    suspension of regulation.
08/18/2004.......................  Temporary final rule;      69 FR 51176........  Notification of Arrival in
                                    request for comments.                           U.S. Ports; Certain
                                                                                Dangerous Cargoes;
                                                                                Electronic Submission [USCG-
                                                                                2003-16688].
12/16/2005.......................  Interim rule; request for  70 FR 74663........  Notification of Arrival in
                                    comments.                                       U.S. Ports; Certain
                                                                                Dangerous Cargoes;
                                                                                Electronic Submission [USCG-
                                                                                2005-19963].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Automatic Identification System

    On July 1, 2003, we published a temporary interim rule with a
request for comments and notice of public meeting titled ``Automatic
Identification System; Vessel Carriage Requirement'' in the Federal
Register. See 68 FR 39353. That temporary interim rule was one of six
Coast Guard maritime security rules published July 1, 2003, in response
to the MTSA. The interim rule implemented AIS requirements under MTSA
and SOLAS, and required AIS on all vessels subject to SOLAS AIS
provisions, Vessel Traffic Service Users and certain other commercial
vessels identified in the MTSA.
    On October 22, 2003, we published a final rule which adopted, with
changes, the requirements of the AIS temporary interim rule. The major
changes were to adopt a uniform U.S. implementation date of December
31, 2004, and to not require AIS on certain fishing and passenger
vessels. See 68 FR 60559 and 60562.
    Table 2 lists the two AIS rulemaking documents discussed above and
a correction document.

  Table 2--Automatic Identification System; Vessel Carriage Requirement
                            [USCG-2003-14757]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Date                     Action                FR cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
07/01/2003..................  Temporary interim     68 FR 39353.
                               rule with request
                               for comments and
                               notice of meeting.

07/16/2003..................  Correcting            68 FR 41913.
                               amendments.
10/22/2003..................  Final rule..........  68 FR 6055.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Expansion of AIS Carriage

    On the same date the AIS temporary interim rule was published, we
published a notice in the Federal Register posing eight questions and
requesting comments on how best to address implementation beyond the
then-published AIS regulations. See 68 FR 39369 (July 1, 2003). We held
public meetings and extended the comment period to January 5, 2004, to
allow the public and, specifically, the fishing and small passenger
vessel industry, the opportunity to submit comments after they had seen
the final rule published October 22, 2003. See 68 FR 55643 (Sept. 26,
2003) and 68 FR 61818 (Oct. 30, 2003). In Section IV, below, we discuss
the many comments we received and note proposed changes from the 2003
final rule based on these comments.
    Table 3 lists the three documents we published requesting comments
on AIS expansion discussed above.

     Table 3--Automatic Identification System; Expansion of Carriage
             Requirements for U.S. Waters [USCG-2003-14878]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Date                     Action                FR cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
07/01/2003..................  Notice; request for   68 FR 39369.
                               comments.
09/26/2003..................  Notice; request for   68 FR 55643.
                               comments; extension
                               of comment period;
                               notice of public
                               meetings.
10/30/2003..................  Notice; request for   68 FR 61818.
                               comments; notice of
                               public meetings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of Comments Received on Expansion of AIS Carriage

    We thank the more than 180 persons or organizations who responded
to our request for comments and participated in our public meetings on
the expansion of AIS requirements [see docket USCG-2003-14878]. Their
answers to our original eight questions (68 FR 39369) and subsequent
two questions (68 FR 61818) posed in 2003 assisted us in crafting or
amending various provisions of the AIS portion of this rule as stated
in the ``AIS Revisions'' section below. We also received numerous
comments beyond the scope of our ten questions that were similar or
reiterated concerns expressed during the previous rulemaking [see USCG-
2003-14757]. Our opinion and resolution of these comments remains as
stated in our final rule (68 FR 60559), with the following exceptions:

A. Need for AIS and Scope of Availability

    Numerous commenters, for various reasons, do not believe that AIS
requirements are needed or that they should apply to their type of
vessel. In general, we disagree. Congress has given us an AIS mandate
to implement. The Coast Guard has been involved in the development of
AIS since the 1990s and has done so in response to industry demands
[see USCG 2003-14757-8] for ``silent VTSs'' and the need to provide
mariners with pertinent, near real-time navigation information in a
seamless manner which AIS does while reducing the need for voice
communication. We recognize AIS is not a panacea. It will not in itself
prevent a collision or terrorist attack; if AIS is coupled with other
information sources, however, it does provide the mariner and the
government with situational awareness to help thwart these events. It
is not intended to replace the radiotelephone, radio, sound signals,
security measures, or other similar items; rather, it is there to
complement them.
    The starting point or initial affected population of AIS has been
determined for the most part by the MTSA. Congress has stated that all
self-propelled commercial vessels of 65 feet or greater or 26 feet or
greater and over 600 horsepower when engaged in towing and certain
passenger vessels (which we have determined to be those carrying 50 or
more passengers) should have AIS; a portion of the same population is
also required to have radiotelephones under the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge
Radiotelephone Act of 1971 (Radiotelephone Act), Public Law 92-63, 85
Stat. 164. See 33 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. A principal purpose of both the
MTSA and the Radiotelephone Act is to improve navigation safety. AIS
and the radiotelephone, working together, provide the necessary tools
to potentially prevent and mitigate collisions and other mishaps.
    The Radiotelephone Act requires every power-driven vessel of 20
meters (65 feet) or more in length; towing vessels of 26 feet or more
in length; vessels of 100 gross tons and upward carrying one or more
passengers for hire; and dredge and floating plants, in or near a
channel or fairway, engaged in operations likely to restrict or affect
navigation to be equipped and monitor the Bridge-to-Bridge
Radiotelephone (33 U.S.C. 1203, 1204).
    We also propose in this NPRM to require AIS on dredges or floating
plants near commercial channels because these vessels--given the nature
of their operation--pose a unique challenge to navigation. As for
passenger vessels, the AIS provision of the MTSA grants the Coast Guard
discretion as to number of passengers for hire a vessel less than 65
feet may carry. In our 2003 Temporary Interim Rule, we established that
threshold at carrying 50 or more passengers for hire. Subsequently, in
our Final Rule, we excepted these vessels (and fishing vessels) and
established a 150-passengers-for-hire threshold.
    After we published the Final Rule, we posed two additional
questions via a Request for Comments (68 FR 61818), specific to these
segments of industry--fishing and small passenger operators--and the
burden that these regulations placed on these predominantly small
entities. We reviewed all of these comments and made Congress aware of
the various concerns expressed by industry [see USCG-2003-14757-129];
nonetheless, this segment of industry is not uniquely impacted by the
regulations and can greatly benefit from AIS. We therefore propose in
this NPRM, AIS carriage requirements on

fishing vessels of 65 feet or more and on vessels carrying 50 or more
passengers. We propose to omit the distinction of ``for hire'' because
we believe all passengers, whether paying or not, are subject to a
similar safety risk and thus deserve the navigation safety and maritime
security benefit afforded to them by AIS.
    Finally, we propose that any vessel moving CDC also be required to
carry AIS because of the unique risk the movement of CDC poses to the
marine transportation system.

B. Reason AIS Requirement Was Not Expanded to All Vessels

    Many commenters expressed the desire that all vessels have AIS.
Ultimately, we believe all vessels should avail themselves of AIS;
however, we propose to apply this rule only to those vessels for which
we have current authority to mandate carriage of AIS. We propose to add
two classes of vessels, not specifically addressed in the
Radiotelephone Act: high-speed passenger vessels and vessels involved
in the movement of certain dangerous cargo. High-speed passenger
vessels and vessels that transport dangerous cargo pose unique
challenges that AIS is well-suited to address.
    With the advent of AIS Class B devices and the continual drop in
prices for Class A devices, these systems will become more affordable.
Consequently, more vessels will use AIS and the collective benefit AIS
provides will increase. Someday, we hope all vessels will avail
themselves of AIS, as many have done so with charts, radiotelephones,
radars, and other navigation equipment.

C. Use of AIS Class B Devices

    Some commenters recommended that the Coast Guard permit the use of
AIS Class B devices. We agree. Since publication of the 2003 final rule
(68 FR 60559) and through the diligent work of various standards
bodies, we now have AIS Class B devices that are interoperable with AIS
Class A devices. Class B devices differ slightly in features and nature
of design, which reduce their cost (on average half the cost of Class A
devices); however, their performance is somewhat limited. They report
at a fixed rate (30 seconds) vice the Class A's variable rate (2-10
seconds dependent on speed and course change). They consume less power,
but also report at lower power (2 watts versus 12 watts of AIS Class
A), thus impacting their broadcast range. Despite these design
limitations, and after extensive testing by the Coast Guard Research
and Development Center (see International Telecommunication Union study
group report ``Performance Assessment and Interoperability of Proposed
Class B AIS With Existing Class A AIS System Using Simulation
Software'' dated September 9, 2005), we deem AIS Class B devices can
operate properly and safely amongst Class A devices and offer similar
AIS benefits. They broadcast and receive virtually the same vessel
identification and other information. They have the same ability to see
targets that radar may not always show (around the bend, in sea
clutter, or during foul weather). For these reasons, we have concluded
that AIS Class B devices do enhance navigation safety and assist in
collision avoidance comparable to AIS Class A devices; however, given
their design limitations, we caution users that they may not be the
best alternative for vessels that are highly maneuverable, travel at
high speed, or routinely transit congested waters.
    The Coast Guard seeks comment in this NPRM on whether AIS Class B
devices should be permitted only on certain vessels or waterways, or
whether this decision should be best left to the master or owner's
discretion.
    We welcome the advent of lower cost AIS Class B devices and the
continual drop in price of AIS Class A devices--currently averaging
approximately $3,000 vice $7,000 in 2003. Fishing vessels and small
passenger vessels, previously included in the original AIS carriage
requirements of our temporary interim rule (68 FR 39353), will be less
impacted by the current cost of AIS Class A devices and the potential
to use even lower cost AIS Class B devices.

D. Deviation From AIS Requirements

    There were a number of comments stating that AIS should not be
required on vessels operating on certain waterways. We recognize that
the MTSA provides us authority to waive AIS requirements on waterways
where we determine AIS is not needed for safe navigation; however, we
have decided not to create a patchwork of waterways where AIS is or is
not required. Rather than waive requirements on specific waterways we
propose here to grant a deviation based on where or how vessels
operate. To that end, we propose to define what conditions under which
a deviation may be sought. Vessels that operate--
    (1) Solely within a very confined area (e.g., less than a one
nautical mile radius, shipyard, fleeting area);
    (2) On short and fixed scheduled routes (e.g., a bank-to-bank river
ferry service); or
    (3) In a manner that makes it unlikely they will encounter other
AIS users may request a yearly deviation from AIS requirements as set
forth in Sec.  164.55.

E. Relation of Coast Guard AIS Receiving Infrastructure to Requirement
for AIS in All Waters

    Some commenters stated that we should not require the carriage of
AIS in areas where the Coast Guard does not have infrastructure in
place to receive these data. First, we note that the use of AIS may
prevent collisions wherever it is used, regardless of the existence of
shore-side AIS infrastructure. Second, we are working to establish
nationwide capability to fully utilize AIS data wherever we require it
to be transmitted.
    As discussed in the Nationwide AIS section above, a NAIS project is
being conducted to provide the Coast Guard with the capability to
receive and distribute information from shipboard AIS equipment in
order to enhance MDA. That project will provide detection and
surveillance of vessels carrying AIS equipment approaching or operating
in the maritime domain where little or no shore-side vessel tracking
currently exists. Although the NAIS project is not projected to be
fully operational until 2014, we have achieved initial operational
capability for the receive-only increment of the project, and we
anticipate achieving initial operational capability in three Coast
Guard sectors for the transmit-and-receive increment by 2010. Our
existing AIS network of over 90 sites and initial NAIS (Increment One)
capability, in conjunction with other resources to benefit our overall
MDA, would be available before the implementation date of the AIS
requirements proposed here. To complement our existing AIS and future
NAIS infrastructure, all Coast Guard cutters, many boats and some
aircraft are AIS capable.
    For more details on that project, please see the NAIS programmatic
environmental impact statement notice published November 23, 2005 (70
FR 70862); the NAIS programmatic environmental impact statement record
of decision published November 6, 2006 (71 FR 64977); or the NAIS Web
site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-a/Ais/.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In this section we discuss how we propose to revise our NOAD and
AIS regulations.

A. NOAD Revisions

    We propose numerous changes to our NOAD regulations. We propose to
expand the applicability of the NOAD regulations by changing the
minimum

size of vessels covered below the current 300 gross tons, require that
a notice of departure be submitted for all vessels required to submit a
notice of arrival, and mandate electronic submission of NOAD notices to
the National Vessel Movement Center. These changes are described in
further detail under the following 11 headings in this section.
1. Applicability
    We propose to amend the applicability of our regulations in 33 CFR
part 160, subpart C, to clarify that unless a vessel is exempted, NOAD
regulations apply to U.S. vessels in commercial service and all foreign
vessels departing to or coming from a port or place in the United
States. See proposed Sec.  160.203. We have revised some exemptions in
proposed Sec.  160.204. For example, foreign vessels 300 gross tons or
less not engaged in commercial service and not carrying certain
dangerous cargo is one group of vessels that will continue to be
generally exempted from submitting a NOA and will no longer have a
separate NOA requirement for Coast Guard District Seven.
2. Definitions
    We propose to add definitions for commercial service, continental
United States (which includes Alaska), disembark, embark, foreign
vessel, offshore supply vessel, oil spill response vessel, passenger
vessel, recreational vessel, and towing vessel to the definitions
section in 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, proposed Sec.  160.202. These
additions would clarify the meaning of these 10 terms used in our NOAD
regulations. Most of the new definitions come directly from 46 U.S.C.
2101.
3. Exemptions
    We also propose to change the exemptions from reporting
requirements currently found in Sec.  160.203. We would revise the
exemption for vessels 300 gross tons or less not carrying CDCs so that
all commercial vessels coming from a foreign port or place would be
required to submit a NOA, regardless of tonnage.
    We propose to remove the exemption for foreign commercial vessels
300 gross tons or less whether or not they are coming from a foreign
port. Removing this exemption entirely for foreign commercial vessels
would allow the Coast Guard to align its vessel reporting requirements
with CBP electronic arrival manifest requirements in 19 CFR 4.7b. We
propose to maintain the exemption for U.S. commercial vessels 300 gross
tons or less, not carrying CDCs, and transiting between ports or places
of the United States because most are already screened through specific
Federal and State registration and/or licensing programs as are the
mariners that operate and crew these vessels.
    We currently require all foreign commercial and recreational
vessels 300 gross tons or less arriving at a port or place in the
Seventh Coast Guard District to submit NOAs directly to the cognizant
Captains of the Port (COTPs). We are proposing to remove that unique
NOA requirement for foreign recreational vessels arriving in the
Seventh Coast Guard District. This will ensure consistency between
Coast Guard districts and allow more efficient use of Coast Guard
District Seven personnel and resources.
    Vessels over 300 gross tons are currently subject to NOA
regulations. We continue to require their compliance so that we can
maintain visibility of these vessels because they carry a greater
number of passengers and crew and a larger volume of cargo.
    We also propose to revise an exemption for vessels operating upon
the Mississippi River above mile 235 and its tributaries. That
exemption would be limited to vessels required to report to the Inland
River Vessel Movement Center (IRVMC) under 33 CFR part 165.
    We propose to clarify the exemption for a vessel operating
exclusively within a COTP Zone when not carrying certain dangerous
cargo. Under both the current 33 CFR 160.203(b)(2) and proposed 33 CFR
160.204(a)(4)(ii), once a vessel has arrived at a port or place within
a single COTP zone and has submitted the required NOA, if it then
transits to another port or place within the same COTP Zone it is
considered to be operating exclusively within that Zone and, therefore,
is not required to submit a NOAD if it is not carrying CDC. If that
vessel, however, is carrying CDC or leaves one COTP Zone and enters
another, it is not covered by the exemption under current Sec.
160.203(b)(2) or proposed Sec.  160.204(a)(4)(ii) and, therefore, must
submit the required notices.
4. Submitter
    We have inserted proposed Sec.  160.205 to clarify who must submit
notices of arrival and notices of departure. This section would direct
the owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel to
submit NOADs in compliance with the subpart's time, method, and notice
content requirements.
5. NOA Information
    We propose to remove the optional submission of INS (now CBP) Form
I-418 to satisfy crew and passenger information reporting requirements
currently found in Sec.  160.206(c) and to remove the option of
submitting consolidated NOAs found in Sec.  160.206(d). The Coast Guard
found that many vessels submitting consolidated NOAs, or NOAs with
consecutive port submissions, were not reporting changes in their crew,
cargo, or persons in addition to crew. The eNOAD system we have
developed to support the submission of non-consolidated NOADs meets the
requirements of both the Coast Guard and CBP.
    We would revise Sec.  160.206, which contains the information
requirements for NOA reports. The Coast Guard proposes adding a
requirement for the Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number for
vessels in NOA reports because that number is associated with AIS. For
vessels with an MMSI, this would allow the Coast Guard to quickly link
a vessel's NOA with its AIS broadcast in order to detect security
anomalies.
    We also propose to require passport country of issuance and
passport date of expiration information from everyone onboard who
presents a passport--crewmembers and persons in addition to crew. This
additional passport information will aid in the detection of fraudulent
passports that may be used by individuals, both foreign and domestic,
attempting to enter or depart the United States.
    We propose to add a requirement to indicate whether the vessel is
300 gross tons or less and whether the vessel's voyage will be less
than 24 hours in NOA reports. This information will allow the Coast
Guard to prioritize screening of vessels on brief voyages with a
shorter reporting requirement so they are screened before entering
their port or place of destination.
    We also propose to add a data field for vessels to submit their
estimated time of arrival to the entrance to the port (if applicable).
This would be used by COTPs to facilitate vessel traffic management and
to coordinate boardings and inspections. Additionally, we propose to
clarify through item (2)(i) in the table for proposed 33 CFR 160.206
that vessels that have visited ports or places outside the continental
United States need to submit the last five foreign ports or places
visited on their NOA. In a separate item from the table, (2)(ix), all

vessels must report their last port of call, whether domestic or
foreign.
    These two data fields, with accompanying items requesting arrival
and departure dates from ports or places listed, will better enable us
to determine which vessels are coming from foreign ports, and whether
they may have been subject to inspection at another U.S. port since
entering U.S. navigable waters. A vessel that has not visited a foreign
port would make the appropriate entry, as specified by eNOAD, for the
(2)(i) and (2)(ii) fields to report they have not visited a foreign
port or place.
    Finally, in regard to Sec.  160.206, we propose to revise the
reporting requirements on the operational condition of equipment. For
that item, we have replaced the reference to 33 CFR 164.35 with 33 CFR
part 164, so that we would include all relevant navigation equipment,
including AIS.
6. NOD Information
    We propose that all vessels required to submit a NOA will also be
required to submit a NOD when departing from a port or place of the
United States. The departure information required by proposed Sec.
160.207--regarding the vessel, voyage, cargo, crewmembers, and persons
in addition to the crew--would increase our awareness of vessel
movements and, by supplementing NOA data, would allow us to maintain a
complete picture of movements in and out of U.S. ports or places.
    Commercial vessels departing U.S. ports or places bound for foreign
ports or places are currently required by CBP to submit an electronic
passenger departure manifest and an electronic crewmember departure
manifest. See 19 CFR 4.64. As noted in their final rule entitled
``Electronic Transmission of Passenger and Crew Manifests for Vessels
and Aircrafts,'' published in the Federal Register April 7, 2005 (70 FR
17820, 17833), however, CBP has adopted the use of the Coast Guard's
eNOAD to eliminate duplicate reporting requirements and provide a
``single window'' for filing manifest information. While, as indicated
in the paragraph above, we would not limit our NOD requirements to
vessels going to foreign ports, our proposed rule will not change what
CBP stated in their final rule: eNOAD will capture the notice
information we require and the electronic manifest information CBP
requires. See 70 FR 17831 (Apr. 7, 2005).
    We have worked with CBP to avoid requiring a vessel to submit the
same information to our agencies separately, but our agencies do have
separate missions. The information we need to better enable us to
fulfill our mission under 33 U.S.C. 1225--to prevent damage to
structures on, in, or adjacent to the navigable waters of the United
States, as well as protecting those navigable waters--may differ
somewhat from information CBP requires to implement the laws defining
its missions. To the extent, however, that we both require the same
information of vessels, we do not require separate submissions of that
information to satisfy our respective regulations in 19 CFR and 33 CFR.
7. Electronic Submission
    In proposed Sec.  160.210, we would require NOAs and NODs be
submitted via electronic formats found at the National Vessel Movement
Center's (NVMC) Web site: http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov. Mandating
electronic submission of NOADs allows the Coast Guard and CBP to
quickly and automatically process, validate, and screen arrival and
departure notices. The CBP's Advance Passenger Information System
(APIS) regulations, 19 CFR 4.7b and 4.64, mandated that arrival and
departure information be submitted by the electronic system. Coast
Guard and CBP consolidated the reporting requirements and provided the
public with a ``single-window'' for transmitting NOA and NOD
information. Information received through the eNOAD system is
automatically forwarded to both the Coast Guard and CBP.
    Currently, 87 percent of NOA submissions are made via the eNOAD
method. The eNOAD offers a quick and easy way to submit NOAs and NODs.
8. When To Submit NOA
    We recognize that the current times for submitting NOAs in Sec.
160.212 might encumber some small commercial vessels transiting between
U.S. and foreign ports; therefore, we propose to make the reporting
time closer to the departure time for smaller vessels that make
frequent, short voyages between U.S. and foreign ports or places.
    For U.S. commercial vessels 300 gross tons or less, arriving from a
foreign port, and on a voyage of less than 24 hours, we propose in this
NPRM a submission time of 60 minutes prior to departure from the
foreign port or place. This population of vessels often engages in
multiple, unscheduled, short-term voyages within a given 24-hour
period. Because of the emergent and spontaneous nature of their
business, this portion of the vessel industry would be
disproportionately affected if required to submit NOADs 24 hours before
arrival. Additionally, the Coast Guard or State authorities already
document commercial vessels of the United States of 300 gross tons or
less.
    In contrast, we have much less information on some foreign
commercial vessels of 300 gross tons or less; nor do we have advance
access to foreign merchant mariner documentation or licenses of
commercial vessel crews. As a result, our personnel require more time
to review and verify the information submitted by foreign commercial
vessels 300 gross tons or less; therefore, we are not proposing to
reduce the reporting time for this population of foreign vessels.
    This proposed rule would also mandate that foreign commercial
vessels of 300 gross tons or less that had been required by Sec.
160.210(c) to contact COTPs in the Seventh Coast Guard District would
instead submit their NOAs and NODs to the NVMC.
    In proposed 33 CFR 160.212(a)(4) and (b)(4), we have sought to
clarify that the times for submitting a NOA or update are based on a
vessel's arrival at a port or place.
9. When To Submit NOD
    We are proposing a new requirement to mandate times for submitting
NODs. This requirement is similar to the time frame for departure
notices mandated by CBP in its APIS requirements, 19 CFR 4.7b.
10. Force Majeure
    In proposed 160.215, we specify information to be conveyed by
vessels bound for a port or place in the United States under force
majeure. The Coast Guard recognizes the special circumstances of such
vessels and limits the requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, to
reporting information to the nearest Captain of the Port regarding the
vessel operator's intentions, any hazardous conditions, and whether the
vessel is carrying or controlling a vessel carrying CDC. COTP zones are
defined in 33 CFR part 3.
11. Customs Form 1302 Removed
    Finally, we propose to remove some NOA regulatory text that has
been suspended. Requirements for submittal of Customs Form 1302, a
cargo declaration, were included in Coast Guard NOA regulations
published February 28, 2003. See 68 FR 9537. The paragraphs in 33 CFR
part 160 referencing this cargo declaration were suspended 3 months
later pending further CBP regulatory action under then recently enacted
legislation. See 68 FR 27907 (May 22, 2003). At the time, we noted that
we would remove these

cargo-manifest submission requirements from Coast Guard regulations
when they were no longer needed.
    On December 5, 2003, CBP published its ``Required Advance
Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information'' final rule (68 FR
68140), which fully addressed the requirement for submission of this
cargo declaration (Customs Form 1302). 19 CFR 4.7. Our proposed rule
would reinstate the suspended paragraphs (d) and (e) regarding Customs
Form 1302 in 33 CFR part 160 so that we could then remove them because
they are no longer needed.

B. AIS Revisions

    We are proposing numerous changes to our automatic identification
system and related regulations. Those regulations require the
installation and operation of a device that automatically broadcasts
information about the vessel--its position, and current voyage--that
may be received by other AIS-equipped stations.
    The proposed rule would revise current AIS operation requirements
and would expand AIS applicability to all U.S. navigable waters; under
our current regulations, vessels not on an international voyage are
only required to use AIS in Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) areas. We
would also expand AIS applicability to all commercial vessels 65 feet
or more in length and the following commercial vessels, regardless of
length: Vessels carrying 50 or more passengers (whether for hire or
not); vessels carrying 12 or more passengers for hire and capable of
speeds in excess of 30 knots; dredges and floating platforms operating
near or in a commercial channel or shipping fairway; and any vessels
carrying or engaged in the movement of CDC. These proposed changes are
described in greater detail in the 12 headings below in this section.
1. Changes to VTS Terminology and Definitions
    In Sec.  160.5, we replace the term ``Commanding Officers, Vessel
Traffic Services'' with ``Vessel Traffic Services Director'' to better
align with our current sector organizational structure.
    In part 161, we are making several changes. Those include adding
vessels operating with a type-approved AIS to the definition of
``Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) user'' in Sec.  161.2. Since all Coast
Guard VTSs are AIS-capable, this revision will facilitate vessel
traffic management within a VTS and will allow AIS-equipped vessels to
avail themselves of VTS services.
2. Administrative Changes and Changes in Definition
    In part 161, we propose making two revisions, in Sec. Sec.  161.12
and 161.19, to reflect the new location (Sec.  160.202) of our certain
dangerous cargo (CDC) definition.
    In part 164, we are making several revisions including in Sec.
164.02(a), in which we are revising the section reference to Sec.
164.46 to reflect the new location of AIS requirements for SOLAS
vessels in that section, paragraph (c), which, unlike the rest of the
part, apply to vessels in innocent passage.
    We are adding four items to the incorporation by reference list in
Sec.  164.03 ((f)(2), (5), (6), and (8)) reflecting new guidance
regarding AIS installation, use of binary applications and the AIS
destination field, and deleting the IEC and ITU portions.
    We are revising Sec.  164.46 to expand its applicability and better
define the proper operation of AIS.
    We are moving three terms--gross tonnage, length, and properly
installed--previously discussed in the note to Sec.  164.46(a) and
adding them to a new proposed ``Definitions'' paragraph at Sec.
164.46(a). This paragraph (a) also includes definitions for Automatic
Identification System (AIS) and International Voyage. We have combined
the properly installed definition with the broader properly installed,
operational definition.
    We are making a revision to Sec.  164.46(b) to denote only ``Coast
Guard type-approved'' equipment as meeting our requirements. This would
include various newly, Coast Guard type-approved AIS Class B devices,
but these devices currently await FCC certification (FCC rules
regarding AIS Class B certification are pending; see 71 FR 60102,
October 12, 2006). We have done so in response to the many commenters
who asked about alternative or less expensive ways to meet the
requirement with AIS Class B devices.
3. Expansion of AIS Carriage Requirements
    We propose to revise AIS requirements and extend applicability
beyond VTS areas to all U.S. navigable waters. Further, we would expand
applicability to all commercial vessels 65 feet or more in length,
including fishing vessels and vessels carrying passengers regardless of
the number of passengers. We would also require commercial passenger
vessels carrying 50 or more passengers (whether for hire or not),
reducing the previous passenger threshold from 150 or more for hire.
Additionally, we propose that vessels carrying 12 or more passengers
for hire and capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots; dredges and
floating platforms operating near or in a commercial channel or
shipping fairway; and any vessels carrying or controlling vessels
carrying CDC be required to install and use AIS.
4. Class A and Class B AIS Devices
    We have also added a note that addresses the use of AIS Class B
devices. AIS Class B devices differ slightly in features and nature of
design, which reduces their cost (on average half the cost of AIS Class
A devices) but also impacts their performance. They report at a fixed
rate (30 seconds) versus the AIS Class A variable rate (2-10 seconds
dependent on speed and course change). They consume less power but also
report at lower power (2 watts versus 12 watts of AIS Class A), thus
impacting their broadcast range. Despite these design limitations, AIS
Class B devices offer similar AIS benefits. They broadcast and receive
virtually the same vessel identification and information. They have the
same ability to see targets that radar may not always show (around the
bend, in sea clutter, or during foul weather). For these reasons, and
after conducting our own AIS Class B testing, we have concluded that
AIS Class B devices would enhance navigation safety and assist in
collision avoidance as do Class A devices; however, we caution users
that they may not be the best alternative for vessels that are highly
maneuverable, travel at high speed, or routinely transit congested
waters.
5. Changes Regarding SOLAS AIS Requirements
    As previously noted, we propose to revise paragraph (b) of Sec.
164.02 to reflect the new location in Sec.  164.46 for SOLAS
requirements. In our proposed Sec.  164.46(c), we omit SOLAS
implementation dates because those dates have lapsed. In the proposed
paragraph (c), we would also reflect SOLAS applicability for self-
propelled vessels in three paragraphs rather than four:
     500 gross tonnage or more,
     300 gross tonnage or more on international voyage, or
     150 gross tonnage or more carrying more than 12
passengers.
    The first two paragraphs, Sec.  164.46(c)(1) and (2), would
properly reflect SOLAS applicability for tankers; therefore, there is
no need to list tanker applicability separately.

6. Clarification of Operating Requirements
    In response to numerous comments and suggestions, we have expanded
operating requirements in new paragraph Sec.  164.46(d) clarifying that
the use of AIS does not relieve the vessel of existing requirements in
the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
(72 COLREGS), 28 U.S.T. 3459, T.I.A.S. 8587, or Inland Navigation
Rules, 33 U.S.C. 2001 through 2073, the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge
Radiotelephone Act (33 U.S.C. 1201 through 1208), part 26 of this
chapter, nor requirements of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) specified in 47 CFR part 80. AIS-equipped vessels are to sound
whistle signals and display lights or shapes to denote a vessel's
navigation status. Vessels should ensure that their AIS ``navigation
status'' field accurately reflects the vessel status as denoted by its
navigation lights or displayed shapes. Vessels must also make
appropriate voice broadcasts and passing arrangements on the designated
VHF bridge-to-bridge channel. We also address the use of AIS messaging
and note that it should not be relied upon for distress or urgent
marine communications.
    We also propose a requirement for the vessel to ascertain that its
AIS and associated equipment is properly operating prior to navigating.
We have done so in response to the many improperly operating AIS we
have encountered in enforcing the current regulations. Many users are
not aware that proper operation of AIS on SOLAS certificated vessels
requires the use of external devices (the vessel's navigation system,
gyro, and their associated converters) or that they broadcast the
pertinent information regarding the vessel's description, dimensions,
and navigation status. We reiterate here that vessels not ascertaining
that their broadcast AIS information is correct prior to navigation
will now be in clear violation of the rules. This also pertains to the
broadcasts of an unassigned or improper Maritime Mobile Service
Identity (MMSI) number. Each vessel's properly assigned MMSI is what
distinguishes its reports from other vessel's reports. Duplicate or
improper MMSIs may cause a vessel's reports not to be heard or to
interfere with the reports of other vessels.
7. Location and Use of AIS
    We further propose that the functionality and the display of AIS
information be located at or near the conning position of the vessel
and be used by the master or the person in charge to pilot or direct
the movement of the vessel. The safety benefits of AIS can only be
accrued by those who avail themselves of its information; thus, we deem
it should be located at the conning position for use by the master and
conning officer and that a periodic watch be kept of AIS information.
Note, we do not require that the unit itself be installed there, only
that access to AIS information be available there. This can be
accomplished by the AIS MKD or some other appropriate AIS presentation
device, such as an AIS-capable radar or electronic chart system being
installed there.
8. Integration of External Sensors
    We recognize the use of external sensors or devices, such as
transmitting heading devices, gyros, rate of turn indicators, ECDIS/
ECS, or radar, and we are aware that such devices may improve AIS
performance; however, as of the date of this publication, we do not
require their installation or integration, except for those vessels
subject to requirements in SOLAS Regulation V/19 as denoted in proposed
Sec.  164.46(c). We are also mindful that the MKD is not the most
optimal interface to access and use AIS information; it was never
intended to be so. Each AIS has, at minimum, two high speed input/
output ports for connection of onboard control equipment, ECDIS/ECS,
radar, etc., and a pilot/auxiliary port for connection of an AIS pilot
system. Use of these ports for external display systems is certainly
envisioned and desirable; however, we note that technical requirements
to do so are still in development. Requirements regarding electronic
chart systems and the display and integration of AIS information on
them will be the subject of a separate rulemaking.
9. Implementation Date
    We also propose an implementation date, for those vessels covered
by this rulemaking, but not currently required to have AIS, of no later
than 7 months after publication of the final rule. We consider this a
reasonable length of time for owners to plan to purchase and install
AIS.
10. Location of AIS Pilot Port
    In proposed Sec.  164.46(g), we clarify the previous requirement
that the AIS Pilot Port be located ``near'' an alternating current (AC)
outlet to a maximum length--no more than 3 feet from each other.
11. Requests for Deviation
    The following vessels may request a yearly deviation from AIS
requirements. Vessels that operate--
    Solely within a very confined area (e.g., less than a one nautical
mile radius, shipyard, fleeting area);
    On short and fixed scheduled routes (e.g., a bank-to-bank river
ferry service); or
    In a manner that makes it unlikely they will encounter other AIS
users.
12. Removal of Expired Requirements
    We propose to remove Sec.  164.43 and its separate and expired
Prince William Sound AIS requirement. Also, in Sec.  165.1704, we
propose to remove paragraph (c)(6) because it refers to expired
requirements for having Automatic Identification System Shipborne
Equipment in the Prince William Sound regulated navigation area.

C. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in 33 CFR
164.03. You may inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
where indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available
from the sources listed in Sec.  164.03.
    Before publishing a binding rule, we will submit this material to
the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation
by reference.

VI. Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) requires a determination whether
a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and subject to the
requirements of the Executive Order. This rulemaking has been
identified as significant under Executive Order 12866. A combined
Regulatory Analysis and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
available in the docket as indicated under the ``Public Participation
and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. A summary of the
analysis follows.
    This proposed rule would expand the applicability for NOAD and AIS
requirements.

    The regulatory analysis (RA) presents the scope and magnitude of
costs incurred by industry (vessel owners) and benefits derived from an
anticipated reduction in marine casualty cases, and we include a cost-
effectiveness analysis for both segments of this rulemaking. We also
present the overarching assumptions that provided the foundation for
both our cost and benefit analyses and make this information available
to the public for comment.
    The NOAD portion of this proposed rule would significantly expand
the applicability to include all commercial foreign-flag vessels
regardless of tonnage down to zero gross tons that make port calls to
the United States. The expanded NOAD applicability also includes all
U.S. commercial vessels 300 gross tons or less coming from a foreign
port. It would also require that a notice of departure be submitted for
all vessels that are required to submit a notice of arrival. The
proposed rule would also mandate electronic submission of NOAD notices
to NVMC.
    Section 102 of the MTSA mandates that AIS be installed on all--
foreign or domestic--commercial self-propelled vessels equal to or
greater than 65 feet in length (including fishing vessels) in U.S.
navigable waters, including those outside already-regulated VTS areas.
This includes towing vessels equal to or greater than 26 feet in length
and 600 horsepower and, as determined by the Secretary under authority
of the MTSA, passenger vessels carrying at least 50 passengers, certain
high-speed passenger craft, certain dredges or floating plants, and
vessels carrying or moving CDCs. These expanded requirements would
allow the Coast Guard to better correlate vessel AIS data with NOAD
data, enhance our ability to identify anomalies, and expand our overall
MDA.
    We could not, with a great degree of certainty, estimate how many
vessels transit outside of VTS coverage areas. With this in mind, we
estimated the numbers of vessels affected by this rulemaking by using
the population figures presented in the AIS final rule (included in the
MTSA suite of rulemakings) under docket number, USCG-2003-14757. The
Coast Guard published the final rule for AIS in the Federal Register on
October 22, 2003, at 68 FR 60559. We estimate that both segments of the
proposed rule would affect approximately 42,607 vessels. The total
number of domestic vessels affected is approximately 17,323 and the
total number of foreign vessels affected is approximately 25,284.
    We estimate that the NOAD portion of the proposed rule would affect
approximately 5,566 domestic vessels and approximately 25,284 foreign
vessels. Of the 5,566 domestic vessels, approximately 4,566 would be
required to install AIS and submit NOADs and about 1,000 of the
remaining vessels would be required to submit NOADs only. The total
number of vessels affected by the NOAD portion of the proposed rule is
approximately 30,850.
    We estimate that the AIS portion of the proposed rule would affect
approximately 16,323 domestic vessels and approximately 1,119 foreign
vessels. The total number of vessels affected by the AIS portion of
this proposed rule is approximately 17,442.
    Table 4 below summarizes the vessel population affected by the
proposed rule.

                             Table 4--Summary of U.S. and Foreign Vessel Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total vessels affected *
                                                             NOAD        AIS    --------------------------------
                                                                                U.S.     Foreign     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 U.S. Vessels...........................................   ** 5,566     16,323      17,323     25,284     42,607
 Foreign Vessels........................................     25,284   *** 1,119  .........  .........  .........
                                                         -----------------------
    Total Vessels by Portion of Rule....................     30,850     17,442   .........  .........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals do not add up to sum of portions of the proposed rule since some vessels required to install AIS would
  also be required to submit NOADs. Consequently, adding both would double count most of the ``AIS affected''
  vessels.
** Of the approximately 5,566 U.S. vessels required to submit NOADs, about 1,000 would submit NOADs only; the
  remainder of about 4,566 would be required to both install AIS and submit NOADs.
*** All of the approximately 1,119 foreign-flag vessels required to install AIS would also be required to submit
  NOADs.

    Our NOAD vessel populations include vessels greater than 300 gross
tons (approximately 3,099), although these vessels are currently
required to submit NOAs for a distinct voyage or port call to the U.S.
The proposed rule would mandate that all commercial vessels would be
required to submit NODs as well as NOAs; therefore, we based our
analysis on this difference in applicability. The proposed rule would
also mandate that all commercial vessels must submit NOADs
electronically (eNOAD).
    The eNOAD system would allow the Coast Guard to meet its
notification of arrival requirements and provide synergy with the CBP
requirements that would eliminate duplicative reporting. We anticipate
that submitting NOADs by this format should reduce the burden hours
imposed on industry whereas under a temporary final rule (69 FR 51176,
Aug. 18, 2004) and a subsequent interim rule (70 FR 74663, Dec. 16,
2005), two new methods of electronic submission were added and made
optional. All vessels would be required to submit NOADs by a computer,
which would require the purchase of this item.
    We assess the costs and benefits of the proposed rule over the 10-
year period, 2008-2017, and present costs in 2006 dollars. We discount
costs to their present value (PV) at three and seven percent discount
rates over the period of analysis. Cost estimates include capital costs
such as the purchase of a computer, and transmission, annual
maintenance, and replacement costs for the NOAD portion of this
rulemaking. Cost estimates for the AIS portion of this rulemaking
include the AIS unit itself and installation, training, annual
maintenance, and replacement costs. Quantified, monetized benefit
estimates for the AIS portion of this rulemaking include avoided
injuries, fatalities, and pollution as a result of the proposed rule.
Non-quantified benefits for AIS include enhanced MDA, improved
information sharing with NOAD, and improved overall communications. We
expect that non-quantified benefits exist for the NOAD portion of this
rulemaking such as an efficient and timesaving method of notification
thereby reducing the hour burden on industry and Coast Guard resources.
    Considering domestic commercial vessels less than or equal to 300
gross tons coming from a foreign port, for example, we propose a 60-
minute notice time for vessels on voyages of less than 24 hours. We
believe that this population of vessels would originate

mostly from Caribbean or Canadian ports and many vessels in this
population potentially could be charter vessels such as fishing vessels
or smaller ferries that would not have passenger information until a
few minutes before departure. To the extent that many vessels in this
population are charter vessels, a 60-minute notice time would greatly
benefit these small vessel owners since they would not be idle in port
waiting for the charter to reach its capacity. In contrast, if we
expand the notice time, for example, to 24 hours for this vessel
population, these vessel owners potentially would lose customers and
revenues since they rely on walk-up business as they wait in port in
order to satisfy a longer notice time. It may be likely that a longer
notice time would force some of these small business owners to leave
the industry as they realize lower revenues and reduced economic
profits as a result.
    Our proposed 60-minute notice time provides flexibility for the
smaller vessel owner since these businesses would continue to be able
to operate efficiently as charter businesses due to the spontaneous
nature of their business. This requirement also aligns with the Customs
and Border Patrol (CBP) proposed requirement, which would alleviate
confusion within the industry and provide consistency for the public.
The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on how a shorter
notice time benefits your business with increased flexibility as
opposed to a longer notice time. We would also like comments on how
much this provision would save your business annually.
    We estimate the total initial cost of the proposed rule to U.S.
vessel owners and operators to comply with the NOAD portion of this
rulemaking is between $3.4 and $4.3 million (non-discounted, with a
2008 implementation date), which covers the preparation of NOADs, the
capital cost of purchasing a computer [we used $500 for the cost of a
computer which is consistent with the CBP's APIS rulemaking (70 FR
17820, Apr. 7, 2005)]. The total initial year cost to U.S. vessel
owners and operators to comply with the AIS portion of this rulemaking
is approximately $69.0 million (non-discounted, with a 2008
implementation date), which includes the capital cost of an AIS unit,
installation, and training costs. Due to economies of scale, we
estimate the cost of an AIS unit to be approximately $3,000. The annual
recurring cost for the NOAD portion of the proposed rule would be
approximately between $4.1 million (using median number of trips made
per vessel) and $6.7 million (using mean number of trips made per
vessel) (non-discounted). The annual recurring cost of the AIS portion
of the proposed rule would be approximately $4.4 million (non-
discounted).
    We estimate that the 10-year total present discounted value or cost
of the proposed rule to U.S. vessel owners is between $132.2 and $163.7
million (seven and three percent discount rates, respectively, 2006
dollars) over the period of analysis, 2008-2017. We estimate the 10-
year present discounted value or cost of the NOAD portion of the
proposed rule using both a high and a low median number of trips to
account for the variability in the number of trips made. The 10-year
total present discounted value or cost to U.S. vessel owners for the
NOAD portion of the proposed rule is between $10.4 and $20.1 million at
seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. Using the median
and mean number of trips made by U.S.-flag vessels, we estimate the
annualized NOAD costs to U.S.-flag vessel owners and operators to be
approximately $1.5 and $2.4 million, respectively.
    The 10-year total present discounted value or cost to U.S. vessels
owners for the AIS portion of the proposed rule is between $121.8 and
$143.5 million at seven and three percent discount rates, respectively.
The AIS portion of the proposed rule is the most costly element
representing about 87 percent of the 10-year total present discounted
value or cost at both seven and three percent discount rates. The
initial cost (non-discounted) for the AIS portion represents nearly 94
percent of the total initial cost (non-discounted) of the proposed
rule. We estimate annualized AIS costs to U.S. vessel owners and
operators to be approximately between $17.3 and $16.8 million at seven
and three percent discount rates, respectively.
    We estimate that the 10-year total present discounted value or cost
for foreign-flag vessels to comply with the NOAD portion of the
proposed rule is between $40.9 and $62.4 million at seven and three
percent discount rates, respectively. Using the mean and median number
of trips made by foreign-flag vessels, we estimate the annualized NOAD
costs to foreign-flag vessel owners and operators to be approximately
$7.3 and $4.8 million, respectively. We estimate the total present
discounted value or cost for foreign-flag vessel owners to comply with
the AIS portion of the proposed rule is between $8.3 and $9.8 million
at seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate
annualized AIS costs to foreign-flag vessel owners and operators to be
approximately $1.2 million. We estimate that the total present
discounted value or cost of the proposed rule for both U.S. and
foreign-flag vessel owners is between $181.4 and $235.9 million at
seven and three percent discount rates, respectively, over the 10-year
period of analysis.
    Table 5 below summarizes the total annualized costs of the proposed
rule for both U.S. and foreign-flag vessel owners and operators.

       Table 5--Summary of Total Annualized Costs of Proposed Rule to U.S. and Foreign-Flag Vessel Owners
                                                   [$Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Totals *
                                                                NOAD * (median        AIS         (median trips
                                                                 trips made)                          made)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.-Flag Vessels............................................      $2.4 ($1.5)      $16.8-$17.3    $20.2 ($19.2)
Foreign-Flag Vessels.........................................        7.3 (4.8)              1.2        8.5 (7.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mean number of trips made.

    In the interest of national security and maritime domain awareness,
the Coast Guard believes that this proposed rule, through a combination
of NOAD and AIS, would strengthen and enhance not only maritime
security but also the national security of this country. We believe
that expanding NOA applicability, specifically to foreign commercial
vessels under 300 gross tons and to all U.S. commercial vessels coming
from foreign ports or places, and requiring them to also submit NODs--
in conjunction with AIS--would accomplish this goal. The combination

of NOAD and AIS would create a synergistic effect between the two
requirements and would include a significant number of smaller vessels
not currently covered under the current regulations. This is the
primary benefit of the proposed rule.
    Ancillary or secondary benefits exist in the form of avoided
injuries, fatalities, and barrels of oil not spilled into the marine
environment. We estimate that the total discounted benefit (injuries
and fatalities) derived from 68 marine casualty cases analyzed over an
8-year data period from 1996-2003 for the AIS portion of the proposed
rule is between $24.7 and $30.6 million using $6.3 million for the
value of statistical life (VSL) at seven and three percent discount
rates, respectively. Just based on barrels of oil not spilled, we
expect the AIS portion of the proposed rule to prevent 22 barrels of
oil from being spilled annually.
    The 68 casualty cases over the 8-year data period yielded about
$3.2 million in property damage or about $400,000 per year.
    Table 6 below summarizes our findings.

 Table 6--Summary of Total Discounted Cost and Benefit of Proposed Rule for U.S. and Foreign-Flag Vessels (2008-
                               2017, 7 and 3 Percent Discount Rates, 2006 Dollars)
                                                   [$Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                10-Year total
                                                                     NOAD             AIS            cost of
                                                                                proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Percent Discount Rates:
    U.S. Vessels *...........................................      $10.4-$16.9           $121.8    $132.2-$138.6
    Foreign Vessels **.......................................        40.9-52.6              8.3        49.2-61.0
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost...........................................        51.3-69.5            130.1      181.4-199.6
3 Percent Discount Rate:
    U.S. Vessels *...........................................        12.3-20.1            143.5      155.8-163.7
    Foreign Vessels **.......................................        48.1-62.4              9.8        58.0-72.2
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost...........................................        60.4-82.5            153.4      213.8-235.9

                         AIS Benefits
Injuries and Fatalities Avoided:                                             -
    7 Percent Discount Rate (6.3M VSL).......................                              24.7
    3 Percent Discount Rate (6.3M VSL).......................                              30.6
Pollution Avoided (bbls): ***                                                -
    7 Percent Discount Rate..................................                               136
    3 Percent Discount Rate..................................                               169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* Using three (and four for vessels <=300 GT) and eight (and nine for vessels <=300 GT) median and mean number
  of trips, respectively.
** Using two (and three for vessels <=300 GT) and four (and five for vessels <=300 GT) median and mean number of
  trips, respectively.
*** We did not find cases involving oil spills from foreign-flag vessels.

    We do not expect quantifiable benefits for the NOAD portion of this
proposed rule and benefits in this case are non-probabilistic (i.e.,
not based on historical probabilities). We believe, however, that there
are considerable inherent qualitative benefits resulting from the NOAD
requirement.
    The Coast Guard Intelligence Coordination Center provided an
intelligence analysis to other internal Coast Guard offices and to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating terrorist
organizations have the capability and the intention to conduct attacks
on the U.S. using vessels as a delivery method for direct attacks on
waterborne primary targets and as a delivery method for personnel and
weapons in support of attacks on secondary targets. Vessels not
currently covered under the applicability of NOAD and AIS regulations
could pose a security risk to the maritime transportation system that
terrorist organizations could exploit. Expanding the applicability of
NOAD and AIS will enhance maritime domain awareness by lowering the
potential security risks. We believe that having this proposed rule in
place could prevent terrorist attacks in the future that might
otherwise have occurred without the rule.
    Since the security benefits noted above are difficult to quantify,
we conducted a break-even analysis to determine what change in the
reduction of risk would be necessary in order for the benefits of the
rule to exceed the costs. Because the types of events that would be
prevented by this regulation vary greatly, we calculate potential
break-even results using a range of generic events that result in loss
of life or casualties. We do expect that most events would also involve
asset destruction or other capital loss. Events involving loss of
capital in addition to casualties would cause the change in risk
reduction to be smaller for costs to equal benefits.
    We use $6.3 million as an estimate of a Value of a Statistical Life
(VSL) to represent an individual's willingness to pay to avoid a
fatality involving maritime transportation and calculate annualized
benefits. Our VSL estimate is based on the 2008 report ``Valuing
Mortality Risk Reductions in Homeland Security Regulatory Analyses''
prepared for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This report is
available on the docket as detailed under ADDRESSES.
    We subtract the annualized benefits of the NOAD and AIS portions of
the proposed rule (7 percent discount rate over 10 years) from the
annualized costs and divide these net costs by the value of casualties
avoided to calculate an annual risk reduction range that would be
required for the benefits of both portions of the rule to at least
equal the costs.
    The annual risk reductions required for the rule to breakeven are
presented below for a range of casualties. As shown, depending on the
casualties avoided, risk would have to be reduced 0.1 (1,000 casualties
avoided) to 1.2 percent (100 casualties avoided) in order for the NOAD
portion of the proposed rule to breakeven. For the AIS portion of the
proposed rule, risk would have to be reduced 0.3 (1,000 casualties
avoided) to 2.9 percent (100 casualties avoided) in order for the AIS
requirements of the proposed rule to

breakeven. These small changes in risk reduction suggest the potential
benefits of the proposed rule justify the costs.

   Annual Percent Risk Reduction Required for Costs To Equal Benefits
                 [Annualized at 7 percent over 10 years]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Casualties avoided                      NOAD     AIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100...................................................      1.2      2.9
250...................................................      0.5      1.2
500...................................................      0.2      0.6
750...................................................      0.2      0.4
1,000.................................................      0.1      0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See the ``Regulatory Analysis'' in Docket No. USCG-2005-21869 at
http://www.regulations.gov for details of these calculations

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of 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 is available in the docket as
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble.
    We have reviewed this proposed rule for potential economic impacts
on small entities. From our analysis, we conclude that this proposed
rule may affect a substantial number of small entities, as defined by
the Small Business Administration (SBA). Small entities affected by
this rulemaking are vessel owners and operators.
    Due to the large number of vessels and vessel owners and operators
potentially affected, we took a random sample of the total number of
companies that could be affected by this rulemaking. We found that this
rulemaking may affect as many as 14,506 U.S. companies that own and
operate the 17,323 domestic vessels. Using 95 percent as our confidence
level, we took a random sample of 375 small businesses. We researched
approximately 3,300 companies in order to achieve our sample size of
375 small businesses, or about a 9 to 1 ratio. We found that some of
the companies that we researched lacked company data such as revenues
and employee size, which precluded us from using those companies in our
analysis based on SBAs criteria for small companies. Based on the
industry classification codes from the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS), we found that about 12 percent of the
small businesses analyzed are classified under the NAICS code for
``navigational services to shipping'' companies. About 11 percent of
the small businesses analyzed are classified under the NAICS code for
``scenic and sightseeing transportation'' companies. The remaining 77
percent of the small businesses analyzed represent a variety of
different industry classification codes, each representing a small
portion of the small businesses analyzed (for more details, see the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis available in the docket).
    To estimate the impact on small businesses in the initial year, we
multiplied the first year costs for implementing NOAD (includes
capital, installation, and submission costs) and installing AIS
(includes capital, installation, and training costs) by the number of
vessels that each small business owns. We divided this cost by the
average annual revenues for each small business to obtain a proportion
of the initial cost to annual revenues. This allows us to determine the
initial cost impact of this proposed rule on small businesses. We also
estimated the annual cost impact on small businesses using the same
methodology explained above. Again, we multiplied the annual costs that
each small business would incur for implementing NOAD (includes
operation and maintenance and submission costs) and installing AIS
(includes operation and maintenance costs) by the number of vessels
that each small business owns. We divided this cost by the average
annual revenues for each small business to obtain a proportion of the
annual costs to annual revenues.
    Table 7 presents the initial and annual revenue impacts for the
sample of 375 small companies that we researched with known average
annual revenues.

  Table 7--Estimated Revenue Impact of the Proposed Rule for Small Businesses That Own U.S.-Flag SOLAS and Non-
                                                  SOLAS Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Initial                             Annual
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Number of small  Percent of small   Number of small  Percent of small
    Percent impact on annual revenue        entities with     entities with     entities with     entities with
                                            known revenue     known revenue     known revenue     known revenue
                                                data              data              data              data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-3.....................................               357                95               375               100
>3-5....................................                10                 3                 0                 0
>5-10...................................                 7                 2                 0                 0
>10-20..................................                 1                 0                 0                 0
>20.....................................                 0                 0                 0                 0
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................               375               100               375               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown, the proposed rule would have a 3 percent or less impact
on 95 percent of the small businesses that own vessels that would have
to comply with both the NOAD and AIS portions of this proposed rule
during the first year the rule is in effect. The proposed rule would
have a 3 percent or less impact on 100 percent of the small businesses
annually that we sampled. The data suggest this proposed rule would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and
we request comments from the public on whether they believe this
finding is correct. For more information on small entities, refer to
the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) portion of the regulatory
analysis in the docket under docket number USCG-2005-21869.
    The Coast Guard is interested in the impact of this rulemaking on
small entities. If you are a small entity, we specifically request
comments regarding the economic impact of this proposed rule on you.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rulemaking so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If you
think that this proposed rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning these provisions or options for compliance, please consult
with the Coast Guard personnel listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule. Note, the Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
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 calls for the 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.
    This proposed rule modifies two existing OMB-approved collections,
1625-0100 (formerly 2115-0557), and 1625-0112. The request for approval
of these Collections of Information are available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble.
    The summary of the revised 1625-0100 collection follows:
    Title: Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival and Departure.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0100.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard requires
pre-arrival notices from certain vessels entering a port or place in
the United States. This proposed rule would increase the number of
vessels required to submit a NOA and establishes a NOD requirement.
    Need for Information: To ensure port safety and security and to
ensure the uninterrupted flow of commerce. To this end, the Coast Guard
must modify its NOA regulations.
    Proposed Use of Information: This information is required to
control vessel traffic, develop contingency plans, and enforce
regulations.
    Description of the Respondents: Respondents are the owner, agent,
master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel that arrives at or
departs from a port or place in the United States.
    Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved number of
respondents is 9,206. This proposed rule would increase that number by
21,644. The total number of respondents would be 30,850.
    Frequency of Response: The existing OMB-approved number of
responses is 78,538. This proposed rule would increase that number by
78,584. The total number of responses would be 157,122.
    Burden of Response: The existing OMB-approved burden of response is
approximately 2.5 hours. This proposed rule would decrease that number
by 60 percent, due to the mandated use of electronic reporting. The
estimated burden of response is now 1 hour.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved total
annual burden is 200,039 hours. This proposed rule would decrease that
number by 42,917, due to the mandated use of electronic reporting. The
estimated total annual burden would be 157,122 hours.
    The summary of the revised 1625-0112 collection follows:
    Title: Enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness via Electronic
Transmission of Vessel Transit Data.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0112.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard plans to
collect, store, and analyze data transmitted by AIS to enhance maritime
domain awareness (MDA). Awareness and threat knowledge are critical for
securing the maritime domain and the key to preventing adverse events.
Domain awareness enables the early identification of potential threats
and enhances appropriate responses, including interdiction at an
optimal distance with capable prevention forces.
    Need for Information: To ensure port safety and security and to
ensure the uninterrupted flow of commerce. To this end, the Coast Guard
must establish this new collection.
    Proposed Use of Information: This information collection, storage,
and analysis would greatly expand the breadth and depth of the Coast
Guard's MDA. This enhanced MDA would enable quicker, more efficient
responses to marine casualties and improve the Coast Guard's ability to
prevent and respond to potential terrorist threats. It would also
contribute an essential aspect to the Coast Guard's COP. The COP is the
Coast Guard's system for sharing operational data among those who need
it to perform their missions.
    Description of the Respondents: Respondents are the operator or
person in charge of a vessel that must carry AIS as mandated by the
MTSA. The MTSA requires the following vessels carry AIS:
     A self-propelled commercial vessel of at least 65-feet in
overall length.
     Vessels carrying more than a number of passengers for hire
determined by the Secretary [herein, 50 or more passengers, or more
than 12 for hire at speeds in excess of 30 knots].
     A towing vessel of more than 26 feet overall in length and
600 horsepower.
     Any other vessel for which the Secretary decides that an
automatic identification system is necessary for the safe navigation of
the vessel [herein, certain dredges or floating plants or engaged in
moving certain dangerous cargoes].
    Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved number of
respondents is 450. This proposed rule would increase that number by
17,442. The total number of respondents would be 17,892.
    Frequency of Response: The existing OMB-approved number of
responses is 450. This proposed rule would increase that number by
169,944. The total number of responses would be 170,394.
    Burden of Response: The estimated annual AIS-related burden of
response is 1\1/2\ hour.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved total
annual burden is 150 hours. This proposed rule would increase that
number by 18,522. The estimated total annual burden would be 18,672.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information.
    We ask for public comment on the collection of information to help
us

determine how useful the information is; whether it can help us perform
our functions better; whether it is readily available elsewhere; how
accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; how valid our
methods for determining burden are; how we can improve the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can minimize the
burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined, that to the extent States have a
current requirement in effect for notices of vessel arrivals or
departures to a State agency--for example, notices to pilot authorities
for pilot services--we do not intend to preempt those requirements with
this rule.
    However, we reserve our position with respect to preemption of any
prospective new State rule or legal requirement for a notice of arrival
or submission of information requirements that are similar to those set
forth in this rule. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000), held that pursuant to title I of
the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221-1232), the
authority for the NOAD portion of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard
can preempt conflicting or similar State requirements on vessel
operation. The Court held also that Congress had preempted the field of
marine casualty reporting. Accordingly, based on the Supreme Court's
holding in the Locke case, we believe that any prospective State
requirement for a NOA or information gathering requirement directed at
vessel owners or operators that is similar to that contained in this
rule is inconsistent with the Federalism principles enunciated in that
case and is preempted.
    Regarding the AIS portion of this proposed rule, it is well settled
that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by
the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the
categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design,
construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping,
personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), in which Congress
intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. In addition, under the authority of Title I of the PWSA
(specifically 33 U.S.C. 1223) and the MTSA, this regulation will
preempt any State action on the subject of AIS carriage requirements.
(See Locke.) Our proposed AIS carriage requirements fall into the
category of equipping of vessels. Because the States may not regulate
within this category, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an
issue for the AIS portion of this proposed rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not require a taking of private property
or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights. We note that on March 20, 2006, a challenge to our
existing AIS regulations was dismissed by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, MariTEL, Inc. v. Collins et al.,
422 F.Supp.2d 188 (D.D.C. 2006). In that case, MariTEL, Inc., alleged,
in part, that our 2003 AIS final rule constituted a taking of its
property--radio frequencies it purchased at a Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) auction. The court concluded that our AIS equipment
requirements were authorized by the FCC and that because our existing
AIS regulations did not specify frequency requirements, our AIS final
rule did not constitute a taking.

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 rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule would require certain vessels to submit NOADs
and to install and operate AIS. Some of these vessels may be owned by
Indian tribes, but the 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. Although it is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, this rulemaking is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action; therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, 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.
    The Coast Guard will use the following new voluntary consensus
standard from the International Electrotechnical Commission: IEC 62287-
1, Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems--
Class B shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system
(AIS)--Part 1: Carrier-sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA)
techniques, dated February 9, 2006 in our type-approval process.
    In addition, this proposed rule uses the following standards
required to implement the AIS requirements of an international
agreement, SOLAS:
    1. IMO Resolution A.917(22), Guidelines for the Onboard Operational
Use of Shipborne Automatic Identification System (AIS), dated January
25, 2002.
    2. IMO SN/Circ.236, Guidance on the Application of AIS Binary
Applications, dated May 20, 2004.
    3. IMO SN/Circ.244, Guidance on the Use of the UN/LOCODE in the
Destination Field in AIS Messages, dated December 15, 2004.
    4. IMO SN/Circ.245, Amendments to the Guidelines for the
Installation of a Shipborne Automatic Identification System (AIS)(SN/
Circ.227), dated March 2, 2005.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated
under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of
this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 160

    Administrative practice and procedure, Harbors, Hazardous materials
transportation, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.

33 CFR Part 161

    Harbors, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels, Waterways.

33 CFR Part 164

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR parts 160, 161, 164, and 165 to read as follows:

PART 160--PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY--GENERAL

Subpart C--Notification of Arrival and Departure, Hazardous
Conditions, and Certain Dangerous Cargoes

    1. The authority citation for part 160 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart C is
also issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 46 U.S.C.
3715.

    2. Revise the heading to subpart C to read as shown above.

Sec.  160.5  [Amended]

    3. In Sec.  160.5(d), remove the phrase ``Commanding Officers,
Vessel Traffic Services'' and add, in its place, the term ``Vessel
Traffic Services Director''.
    4. Revise Sec.  160.201 to read as follows:

Sec.  160.201  General.

    This subpart contains requirements and procedures for submitting a
notice of arrival (NOA), a notice of departure (NOD), and a notice of
hazardous condition. The sections in this subpart describe:
    (a) Applicability and exemptions from requirements in this subpart;
    (b) Required information in a NOA and a NOD;
    (c) Required updates to a NOA and a NOD;
    (d) Methods and times for submission of a NOA and a NOD and updates
to a NOA and a NOD;
    (e) How to obtain a waiver; and
    (f) Requirements for submission of the notice of hazardous
condition. Sec. Sec.  160.202 through 160.204 [Redesignated]
    5. Redesignate Sec.  160.202 as Sec.  160.203, Sec.  160.203 as
Sec.  160.204, and Sec.  160.204 as Sec.  160.202, respectively.
    6. In redesignated Sec.  160.202, add definitions, in alphabetical
order, for ``commercial service'', ``continental United States'',
``disembark'', ``embark'', ``foreign vessel'', ``offshore supply
vessel'', ``oil spill response vessel'', ``passenger vessel'',
``recreational vessel'', and ``towing vessels'', and revise the
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  160.202  Definitions.

    Terms in this subpart that are not defined in this section or in
Sec.  160.3 have the same meaning as those terms in 46 U.S.C. 2101. As
used in this subpart--
* * * * *
    Commercial service means any type of trade or business involving
the transportation of goods or individuals, except service performed by
a combatant vessel.
    Continental United States means the contiguous 48 states, Alaska,
and the District of Columbia.
* * * * *
    Disembark means when a crewmember or a person in addition to the
crew is detached from the vessel.
    Embark means when a crewmember or a person in addition to the crew
joins the vessel.
    Foreign vessel means a vessel of foreign registry or operated under
the authority of a country except the United States.
* * * * *
    Offshore supply vessel means a motor vessel of more than 15 gross
tons but less than 500 gross tons as measured under 46 U.S.C. 14502, or