[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5281-5337]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01331]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 20

January 30, 2015

Part IV

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

33 CFR Parts 62, 66, 101, et al.

46 CFR Parts 4 and 148

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

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 62, 66, 101, 110, 117, 118, 151, 160, 161, 164, and
165

46 CFR Parts 4 and 148

[Docket No. USCG-2005-21869]
RIN 1625-AA99

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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Consistent with statutory requirements and provisions, the
Coast Guard is expanding the applicability of notice of arrival (NOA)
and automatic identification system (AIS) requirements to include more
commercial vessels. This final rule amends the applicability of notice
of arrival requirements to include additional vessels, sets forth a
mandatory method for electronic submission of NOAs, and modifies
related reporting content, timeframes, and procedures. This final rule
also extends the applicability of AIS requirements beyond Vessel
Traffic Service (VTS) areas to all U.S. navigable waters, and requires
that additional commercial vessels install and use AIS, consistent with
statutory requirements, and in limited cases, the Secretary's
discretionary authority. These changes will improve navigation safety,
enhance our ability to identify and track vessels, and heighten our
overall maritime domain awareness (MDA), thus helping us address
threats to maritime transportation safety and security.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 2, 2015, except for
amendments to 33 CFR part 160 which become effective April 30, 2015,
with the further exception of Sec.  160.204(a)(6), which is effective
April 30, 2015 through December 31, 2015; and except for Sec. Sec.
160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, 160.208(a) and (c), and 164.46(b) and (c),
which contain collection of information requirements that have not yet
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Coast
Guard will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of these four collection-of-information related
sections. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed
in the final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
on March 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2005-21869 and are available for inspection or
copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2005-21869 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on the NOA
portion of this final rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Michael
Lendvay, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC), Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on the AIS portion of this final rule, call or email Mr.
Jorge Arroyo, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-2), Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Finally, if you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary and Regulatory History
    A. Executive Summary
    1. Purpose and Authority
    2. Overview of the Final Rule
    3. Costs and Benefits
    B. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Summary of Changes From NPRM
VI. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. Notice of Arrival and Departure
    1. Applicability
    2. Definitions
    3. Exemptions
    4. NOA Information
    5. NOD Information
    6. Electronic Submission
    7. When To Submit an NOA
    8. When To Submit an NOD
    9. Force Majeure
    10. Need for NOAD Data and Agency Collaboration in Obtaining It
    11. Scope and Scale
    12. Financial Impact
    13. Outer Continental Shelf
    14. Miscellaneous
    B. Automatic Identification System
    1. Applicability
    2. Broader Use of AIS
    3. Expanding AIS Carriage
    4. Impracticability
    5. AIS and Nationwide AIS
    6. Fishing Industry Concerns
    7. AIS Class B
    8. AIS Displays and Integration
    9. Installation Period
    10. AIS Pilot Plug
    11. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    C. Regulatory Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    1. Notice of Arrival and Departure
    2. Automatic Identification System
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
    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
List of Tables
    Table 1--NOAD Derivation and Comparison Table: Final Rule and
Corresponding Current Applicability or Exemption Paragraphs in 33
CFR Part 160
    Table 2--AIS Derivation and Comparison Table: Final Rule and
Corresponding Current Applicability Paragraphs in 33 CFR 164.46
    Table 3--Comparison of Regulatory Impact Changes Between NPRM
and Final Rule
    Table 4--AIS Carriage Costs and Benefits
    Table 5--NOAD Derivation and Comparison Table: Final Rule and
NPRM Applicability and Exemption Paragraphs in 33 CFR Part 160
    Table 6--AIS Derivation and Comparison Table: Final Rule and
NPRM Applicability Paragraphs in 33 CFR 164.46
    Table 7--Cost per Small Entity To Carry Three AIS Units and
Submit Three Additional NOAD Fields
    Table 8--Annual Risk Reduction Required for Cost to Equal
Benefits for Passenger Vessels With Certain Passenger Capacities
(Annual Costs at 7% Discount Rate)
    Table 9--Nature of Authority To Require Installation and Use of
Automatic Identification System (AIS)

I. Abbreviations

AC Alternating Current
AIS Automatic Identification System
AIS AtoN Automatic Identification System Aids to Navigation
AMS Automated Manifest System
ANF Advance Notice Form
API American Petroleum Institute
APIS Advance Passenger Information System
ASM Application-specific messaging
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AtoN Aids to Navigation
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CDC Certain Dangerous Cargo
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMTS Committee on the Maritime Transportation System

COP Common Operating Picture
COTP Captain of the Port
CSR Continuous Synopsis Record
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
FILS Federal/Industry Logistics Standardization
FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IMO International Maritime Organization
INS mmigration and Naturalization Service
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
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
LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
LRIT Long Range Identification and Tracking
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships
MARSEC Maritime Security
MDA Maritime Domain Awareness
MEPC IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MKD Minimal Keyboard Display
MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identity
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAIS Nationwide Automatic Identification System
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NAVSAC Navigation Safety Advisory Council
NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NMEA National Marine Electronics Association
NOA Notice of Arrival
NOA OCS Notice of Arrival on the Outer Continental Shelf
NOAD Notice of Arrival and Departure
NOD Notice of Departure
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
N-RAT National Risk Assessment Tool
NVMC National Vessel Movement Center
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSRV Oil Spill Response Vessel
OSV Offshore Supply Vessel
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
RA Regulatory Analysis
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTCM Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services
Sec.  Section
SAFE Port Act Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006
SBA Small Business Administration
SN/Circ. (IMO) Safety of Navigation Circular
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential
ULC Universal Location Code
U.S.C. United States Code
VMRS Vessel Movement Reporting System
VSL Value of Statistical Life
VTC Vessel Traffic Center
VTS Vessel Traffic Service
WDR Waste Delivery Receipt
WMD Weapon of Mass Destruction
WME Weapon of Mass Effect

II. Executive Summary and Regulatory History

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose and Authority
    The Coast Guard is expanding the applicability of notice of arrival
(NOA) and automatic identification system (AIS) requirements to include
more commercial vessels, consistent with statutory requirements and
provisions. The Coast Guard is finalizing a narrow expansion of the
applicability beyond the Congressionally-mandated requirements using
the Secretary's discretionary authority. The purpose of these changes
is to improve navigation safety, enhance the Coast Guard's ability to
identify and track vessels, and heighten the Coast Guard's overall
situational and maritime domain awareness (MDA), which will enhance
mariner's navigation safety and the Coast Guard's ability to address
threats to maritime transportation security.
    The authority for the Coast Guard to issue AIS and NOA requirements
stems from the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et
seq.), which allows the Secretary to require the installation of
specified navigation and communications equipment on vessels that
operate within a vessel traffic service (VTS) area, pre-arrival
notices, and other measures to protect navigation and the marine
environment. The authority for the Coast Guard to issue AIS-related
requirements also comes from the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002 (MTSA), Public Law 107-295, which directs that AIS be required
on certain commercial vessels operating on U.S. navigable waters. See
specifically, 46 U.S.C. 70114.
2. Overview of the Final Rule
    This final rule amends the applicability of notice of arrival (NOA)
requirements to include additional vessels (commercial vessels 300
gross tons or less coming from a foreign port or place), sets forth a
mandatory method for electronic NOAD submission, and modifies related
reporting content, timeframes, and procedures. This final rule also
extends the applicability of AIS requirements beyond VTS areas--to all
U.S. navigable waters--and to non-VTS users.
3. Costs and Benefits
    The cost of this final rule will be borne by approximately 18,000
U.S.-flag and foreign-flag vessel owners or operators. We estimate the
total discounted cost of the final rule to be $46.1 million over the
10-year period of analysis at a 7-percent discount rate, and we
estimate that 98 percent of this cost will be borne by U.S. vessels
owners and operators. The NOA burden on industry from this rule was
minimized to the maximum extent possible and includes three new
information fields, consistent with the objectives of this rule. No new
government resources are needed to process the NOA information or AIS-
related requirements of this rule. The AIS-related requirements of this
rule were not applied to low risk, smaller vessels. Based on current
estimates of the risks and benefits, expanding AIS installation
requirements is not justified for smaller vessels that are not moving
certain dangerous cargo (CDC) or flammable or combustible liquid cargo
in bulk.
    We expect benefits of this final rule to include improved security,
safety and environmental protection. The Coast Guard believes that this
final rule will enhance maritime and navigational safety through a
synergistic effect of NOA and AIS, and will strengthen maritime
security. Specifically, when reliable NOA data is combined with other
data from sources such as AIS and long-range identification and
tracking (LRIT) reporting, a common operating picture is formed in
which vessel-specific movements to, from, or in U.S. ports and
waterways can be monitored in near-real time. This will enable the
Coast Guard to filter data from collection mechanisms that do not
require vessel compliance, such as radar, and thereby enhance our
ability to rapidly detect, identify, and track suspicious vessels. This
assists the Coast Guard and our other interagency partners in decision-
making regarding homeland security, and affords decision-makers an
opportunity to prioritize resources and meet mission requirements while
maintaining MDA.
    Improving MDA will also result in improvements to maritime and
navigational safety. We assess additional improvements to safety and
environmental protection quantitatively, given the existence of
historic casualty

data from which to develop such estimates. From the casualty history we
can assess the mitigation of fatalities, injuries, property damage, and
environmental impacts as a result of oil spills from casualty
incidents. We estimate the total discounted benefit (injuries and
fatalities avoided) for the AIS portion of the final rule, derived from
marine casualty cases for the period 1996 to 2010, to be between $25.1
and $31.2 million, using $9.1 million for the value of statistical life
(VSL) at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. We expect the
AIS portion of this final rule to prevent on average 14 barrels of oil
(undiscounted) from being spilled annually, or between 85 and 106
barrels at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively, over the 10-
year period of analysis.

B. Regulatory History

    On December 16, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled ``Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and
Departure, and Automatic Identification System'' in the Federal
Register (73 FR 76295). The preamble of that NPRM contains an extensive
post-September 11, 2001, history of NOA and AIS regulatory actions. We
provided a 4-month comment period for the proposed rule. We received 91
written submissions, and 27 persons made oral statements at our public
meetings. There were approximately 475 comments in response to our
NPRM.
    Public meetings were requested and two were held. We held the first
meeting in Washington, DC, on March 5, 2009, and the second in Seattle,
WA, on March 25, 2009. See 74 FR 3534, January 21, 2009, and 74 FR
9071, March 2, 2009.

III. Basis and Purpose

    This final rule makes revisions to NOAD regulations in 33 CFR part
160 that are necessary to require the submission of comprehensive and
timely information on vessels entering U.S. ports and transiting U.S.
waters. Also, the revision requiring electronic submissions will
expedite processing of NOAD information. Prompt receipt of this
information about a vessel and its voyage, cargo, and persons on board,
and the operational condition of its navigation equipment will assist
us in--
     Preventing damage to structures on, in, or adjacent to the
navigable waters of the United States; and
     Protecting those navigable waters.

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has delegated to
the Coast Guard authority from the PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.). Under
this authority, the Coast Guard may promulgate regulations to--
     Require receipt of pre-arrival messages from vessels
destined for a U.S. port or place in sufficient time to permit advance
vessel traffic planning prior to port entry.
     Protect the navigable waters of the United States, as well
as bridges over those waters, and land structures and shore area
immediately adjacent to such waters, including measures involving the
movement of explosives or other dangerous articles and substances.

See specifically 33 U.S.C. 1223(a)(5), 1225, and 1231.
    This final rule also amends AIS and AIS-related regulations in 33
CFR parts 62, 66, 161, 164, and 165 necessary to implement section 102
of MTSA, Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064, which directs that AIS be
installed and operating on most commercial vessels on the navigable
waters of the United States. See 46 U.S.C. 70114. In addition, this
final rule implements certain mandatory provisions of the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, (SOLAS), as amended.
See specifically SOLAS, Chapter V, regulation 19.2.4, which requires
all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international
voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on
international voyages, and passenger ships irrespective of size, to be
fitted with AIS; and regulation 1.4, which gives the United States some
discretion in implementing these AIS requirements for ships. As a
Contracting Government to SOLAS, the United States has a responsibility
to implement mandatory SOLAS provisions such as these AIS, SOLAS
Chapter V provisions. See SOLAS Art. I, SOLAS, 32 U.S.T. 47, and the
Protocol of 1978 relating to SOLAS, 32 U.S.T. 5577. As with NOAD data,
AIS data also assist us in traffic management, safety, and security.
    The combination of these NOA and AIS revisions will help provide a
more comprehensive picture of the maritime domain. These NOA and AIS
data go into a common operating picture (COP) that uses input from
various sources to provide both a visual display of marine traffic and
a display of each vessel's accompanying information. This system allows
us to detect anomalies in these data elements. Specifically, NOA
provides the stated intent of the vessel, which AIS complements by
providing actual movement and a historical pattern of behavior.
Combining the two, along with non-cooperative means of detection/
tracking, provides a check on both, and thus an early indication of
abnormal behavior, hazardous situations and/or potential security
incidents.

IV. Background

    The NOA- and AIS-specific regulations appear in 33 CFR part 160
subpart C and Sec.  164.46, respectively. AIS-related regulations
appear in 33 CFR parts 62, 66, 161, and 165. As noted, the preamble of
the NPRM published December 16, 2008, contains an extensive post-
September 11, 2001, history of NOA and AIS regulatory actions. See 73
FR 76298-76300.

V. Summary of Changes From NPRM

    We made changes from the proposed rule to reduce the burden of the
final rule, to more closely align it with statutory requirements, to
make it more effective, and to clarify it. We made many of these
changes in response to public comments, which we discuss in Section VI,
``Discussion of Comments and Changes.'' If the rationale for the change
appears in Section VI, then we point to the specific location of that
response in this Section V summary. Otherwise, we provide the rationale
for the change by section number here in this summary of NPRM-to-final-
rule changes.
     We added a section to 33 CFR part 62 and amended two
sections in part 66 to address a comment requesting that we expand AIS
carriage to offshore fixed structures. In our NPRM, we encouraged
broader use of AIS, but this comment highlighted a particular
shortcoming regarding offshore fixed structures. Our proposed rule
addressed mobile shipboard devices such as AIS Class A or B, but not
offshore structures or AIS Aids to Navigation (AIS AtoN) systems which
are best suited for fixed position deployment, such as on offshore oil
platforms. Existing AtoN regulations (see 33 CFR 66.01-1 Basic
Provisions) bar the use of AIS as a Private Aid to Navigation, and thus
preclude the use of an AIS AtoN on certain fixed structures. This
prohibition in the current AtoN regulations is inconsistent with our
stated objective of broadening the use of AIS. An AIS AtoN would
provide position, name, and health status of the aid, such as ``on
station, watching properly.'' These amendments to parts 62 and 66,
which allow for enhanced MDA and improved navigation safety, would not
require anyone subject to our rule to establish an AIS AtoN, they would
merely make that option available.
     We amended 33 CFR 118.120 for the same reasons we amended
part 66, to allow the use of an AIS AtoN on certain fixed structures,
here

specifically bridges. We added the following sentence to Sec.  118.120:
The District Commander may authorize the use of Automatic
Identification System Aids to Navigation in lieu of or in addition to a
racon.
     We removed a technical amendment to Sec.  160.5(d) because
that change was implemented in a separate rulemaking, ``Navigation and
Navigable Waters; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming
Amendments,'' in 2010. See 75 FR 36273, 36287, June 25, 2010.
     In the NOA General section, Sec.  160.201, we inserted a
note to inform readers that notice-of-arrival requirements for the U.S.
Outer Continental Shelf appear in 33 CFR part 146.
     In the NOA Definitions section, Sec.  160.202, we made
five changes. First, we removed the definition for the word
``disembark'' because we no longer use that term in our NOAD
regulations. Second, in part because Sec. 617 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) amended the 46 U.S.C.
2101(19) definition of ``offshore supply vessel'' after our NPRM was
published, we deleted this proposed definition and five others we
proposed (``commercial service,'' ``oil spill response vessel,''
``passenger vessel,'' ``recreational vessel,'' and ``towing vessel'')
that appear in 46 U.S.C. 2101. Inserting 46 U.S.C. 2101 definitions in
the CFR may make it easier for CFR readers to find the definition of a
term used in part 160, but as this recent legislation demonstrates, by
inserting these statutory definitions, we create the potential for
conflicting definitions. With the recent availability of an online
official source of the U.S. Code (see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action), access to 46 U.S.C. 2101 is not as limited as when we
proposed our definition section. Our introductory text in Sec.  160.202
pointing to 46 U.S.C. 2101, combined with a new online source for that
authority, will make it easy to find the 46 U.S.C. 2101 definitions we
have not separately included in Sec.  160.202. Third, rather than use a
jurisdictional term not found in 33 CFR part 2, we did not add a
definition of ``Continental United States'' as proposed, but instead
specified those jurisdictions in the sections in which we proposed to
use that term: Sec. Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(iii) and 160.212(a)(2) and
(b)(2). Fourth, to address public comments, we added definitions for
the following terms that we did not propose to add in the NPRM and that
are not defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101: ``ferry schedule'' and ``Operating
exclusively within a single Captain of the Port zone.'' For a
discussion of these two definitions, see the ``Exemptions'' discussion
in VI.A.3. Fifth, we added a definition of the term ``boundary waters''
that we use in a new Sec.  160.212 paragraph on when to submit an NOA.
     In the NOA Applicability section, Sec.  160.203, we
specified in paragraph (a) that the referenced ports and places were
those within the navigable waters of the United States or any deepwater
port as defined in 33 CFR 148.5 and otherwise clarified that paragraph.
For our rationale, see the ``Applicability'' discussion in VI.A.1.
     We revised the NOA Exemptions and exceptions section,
Sec.  160.204, to address public comments by adding to the list of
exempted or excepted vessels United States- or Canadian-flag vessels
engaged in certain salvage operations and certain ferries on fixed
routes. We also added the requirements each such vessel must meet to
qualify for the exemption or exception. In response to a suspension of
reporting requirements under regulated navigation area requirements in
Sec. Sec.  165.830 and 165.921 until December 31, 2015, we revised
exemption (a)(3), which cited to those reporting requirements, and
added a temporary exemption in paragraph (a)(6). For our rationale, see
``Miscellaneous'' discussion in VI.A.14. Also, we revised the heading
of this section to better reflect that paragraphs (b) and (c) identify
exceptions and for clarification, we replaced ``need not'' with ``is
not required to'' in those two paragraphs. And in paragraph
(a)(5)(vii), we excluded ferries on fixed routes provided the ferry
operator submits an accurate schedule, along with information in
paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(A)-(J), to the Captain of the Port for each port
or place of destination listed in the schedule at least 24 hours in
advance of the first date and time of arrival listed on the schedule
and updates if the schedule or other information submitted changes. For
our rationale, see ``Exemptions'' discussion in VI.A.3.
     Based on comments, in the Information required in an NOA
section, Sec.  160.206, we did not include the proposed entrance-to-
the-port field, Table 160.206(2)(xi); crewmember passport country of
issuance and passport date of expiration fields, Table 160.206(4)(v) &
(vi); or the person in addition to crew passport country of issuance
and passport date of expiration fields, Table 160.206(5)(v) & (vi), in
this final rule. For our rationale, see the ``NOA Information''
discussion in VI.A.4. In this section, we also made non-substantive
edits for clarity. Effective October 30, 2013, a Nontank Vessel
Response Plans and Other Response Plan Requirements final rule (78 FR
60135, Sept. 30, 2013) added another field to Sec.  160.206, in Table
160.206: USCG Vessel Response Plan Control Number, if applicable. We
included that field in our revision of Sec.  160.206.
     We delete the Information required in an NOD section,
Sec.  160.207, based on our decision not to require notices of
departure. For our rationale, see the ``When to Submit an NOD''
discussion in VI.A.8. We made appropriate edits throughout the
regulatory text to reflect our removal of the NOD requirement,
including the removal of Sec.  160.213.
     In the Methods for submitting an NOA section, Sec.
160.210, in paragraph (a), we specify that the methods for submitting
an NOA include both currently available options, and methods that may
be made available on http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov in the future. This
change ensures that current options described in this final rule will
still satisfy submission method requirements even if new options are
later made available on http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov. We clarified
paragraph (b) of Sec.  160.210 by eliminating the restricting eNOAD-
application reference when identifying allowable methods for submitting
NOAs. The eNOAD application provides an easy-to-use, efficient method
for reporting the vessel arrival or departure information required by
the Coast Guard or some other Federal agencies for vessels bound for or
departing from U.S. ports. It was developed to enable an NOA or NOA
update to be submitted directly to the NVMC via the Internet even while
the vessel is underway, thereby avoiding the need for fax machines,
scanners, and telephones. It provides a means for managing and storing
recently submitted NOA data, and allows a previously submitted NOA to
be updated and a partially completed NOA to be saved and submitted at a
later time. These eNOAD application features make completing and
submitting subsequent NOAs faster and easier, but this final rule makes
clear that the Coast Guard will continue to accept other electronic
methods of submission, such as emailing an XML spreadsheet to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>As discussed in VI.A.12, we amended Sec.
160.210(a) to provide the option for a vessel operator who does not
have shore-side support available to fax or phone in an NOA or an
update, for a vessel in an area without internet access or when
experiencing technical difficulties with an onboard computer.
     We revised the When to submit an NOA section, Sec.
160.212, to adjust, in paragraph (a)(3), when NOA

submissions would be required for Canadian-flag vessels less than 300
gross tons arriving directly from Canada via boundary waters in
response to provisions of the Treaty between the United States and
Great Britain relating to boundary waters between the United States and
Canada (Boundary Waters Treaty), 36 Stat. 2448; Treaty Series 548. (For
a discussion of comments related to this treaty's provisions, see
``When to submit an NOA'' discussion in VI.A.7; also see the
``Exemptions'' discussion of this treaty in VI.A.3). Also, we inserted
``Times for submitting NOAs are as follows'' as introductory text for
paragraph (a)(4) to conform with the introductory text of paragraph
(b)(4).
     In response to comments on the When to submit an NOD
section, Sec.  160.213, we decided to eliminate our proposed NOD
requirement and to remove Sec.  160.213 . We determined that NOA
submission requirements would provide sufficient information. For our
rationale, see the ``When to Submit an NOD'' discussion in VI.A.8.
     In the Vessel operating requirements section, Sec.
161.12, we corrected a section reference from ``Sec.  160.203'' to
``Sec.  160.202.'' We also made similar conforming amendments to
reflect the redesignation of our definitions section to Sec.  160.202
in: 33 CFR 101.105, 110.158, 110.168, 110.214, 117.1007, 151.2025,
161.12, 161.19, 165.503, 165.510, 165.753, 165.811, 165.830, 165.921,
165.1181, 165.1183, and 46 CFR 4.05-1 and 148.11. Also as a conforming
amendment in a note to table 161.12(c) in Sec.  161.12, we removed a
reference to Sec.  164.46 requirements applying to certain VTS and
Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) areas because our amendment to
Sec.  164.46 in this final rule expands AIS applicability beyond VTS
and VMRS areas.
     In the Applicability exception for foreign vessels
section, Sec.  164.02, we inserted the word ``foreign'' into paragraph
(a) to clarify that, except where noted, the requirements of this part
do not apply to foreign vessels that meet the criteria listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of that section.
     In the Incorporation by reference section, Sec.  164.03,
for reasons stated in the description of Sec.  164.46(a) changes
immediately below, we added IMO Safety of Navigation Circular SN.1/
Circ.289, regarding ``Guidance on the Use of AIS Application-Specific
Messages;'' deleted SN/Circ.236, which SN.1/Circ.289 revoked; and added
National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) Installation Standard
0400-3.10. We also updated and supplemented contact information for
organizations listed in this section.
     In the Automatic Identification System section, Sec.
164.46, we made the following revisions:
    [cir] In paragraph (a), Definitions, we revised the definition for
``Properly installed, operational'' by adding International Maritime
Organization Safety of Navigation Circular 289, deleting Circular 236,
and adding the National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA)
Installation Standard 0400-3.10. The IMO Maritime Safety Committee
approved SN.1/Circ.289 after publication of our NPRM. This new circular
revises two application specific messages denoted in IMO SN/Circ.236,
revokes five others, and, adds 14 new applications. As noted below in
our ``Broader Use of AIS'' discussion in VI.B.2, the applications added
by SN.1/Circ.289 will broadly expand the capability and use of AIS.
SN.1/Circ.289 revoked SN/Circ.236 effective January 1, 2013. Based on a
comment, we added NMEA Installation Standard 0400-3.10 as an option to
comply with it in lieu of SN/Circ.227 and 245 because the IMO AIS
requirements and guidelines were tailored to large deep-draft seagoing
vessels and may be impractical for the majority of small and shallow-
draft vessels subject to this rule. An example of an impracticality
created by IMO AIS requirements would be a 27-foot vessel attempting to
maintain a 30-foot separation between radio antennas on board. For our
response to the comment, see the ``Impracticability'' discussion in
VI.B.4.
    [cir] In response to comments, in paragraph (b), AIS carriage, we
specified a Coast Guard type-approved AIS Class A device as the
standard for meeting the carriage requirement (for our rationale, see
``AIS Class B'' discussion in VI.B.7); we redesignated paragraphs
(b)(1)-(5) as (b)(1)(i)-(v) to facilitate our addition of paragraph
(b)(2) that lists vessels we determined may use a Coast Guard type-
approved AIS Class B device to satisfy the carriage requirement (for
our rationale, see ``AIS Class B'' discussion in VI.B.7); we revised
the applicability criteria for vessels carrying passengers by setting a
higher general threshold than we had proposed--those carrying more than
150 passengers (instead of more than 50)--and by not adopting our
proposed inclusion of vessels carrying more than 12 passengers for hire
and capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots (for our rationale, see
``Applicability'' and ``Broader Use of AIS'' discussions in VI.B.1 and
VI.B.2); and we supplemented the vessels-moving-certain-dangerous-cargo
applicability paragraph to ensure that vessels carrying or moving
propane and gasoline as cargo are also required to use AIS (for our
rationale, see ``Definitions'' discussion in VI.A.2 and
``Applicability'' and ``Expanding AIS Carriage'' discussions in VI.B.1
and VI.B.3). To be consistent in our terminology, we changed ``engaged
in commercial towing'' in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) that expressly covers
towing vessels to ``engaged in commercial service,'' and in paragraph
(b)(1)(v) we deleted the ``es'' from ``cargoes'' to match the term we
point to as being defined in 33 CFR part 160 subpart C, ``certain
dangerous cargo.'' We also replaced the content of the informational
note to paragraph (b), which discussed AIS Class B devices, with
information regarding a Coast Guard Captain of the Port's (COTP's)
authority under 33 U.S.C. 1223(b)(3) and 33 CFR 160.111 to restrict the
operation of a vessel if he or she determines that, by reason of
weather, visibility, sea conditions, port congestion, other hazardous
circumstances, or the condition of such vessel, the restriction is
justified in the interest of safety.
    [cir] In paragraph (c), SOLAS provisions, we included the titles of
Chapter V regulations <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS> (``Positioning
System,'' ``Transmitting Heading Device,'' and ``Gyro Compass,''
respectively) to make it easier for the reader to identity the subject
matter of the SOLAS regulation listed. We also removed paragraph (c)(1)
because the vessels we intended to cover with it that do not engage on
international voyages are covered by Sec.  164.46(b)(1) and those that
do are covered by both Sec.  164.46(b)(1) and proposed Sec.
164.46(c)(2), which we redesignated as (c)(1) in this final rule.
    [cir] Within paragraph (d), Operations--
    [ssquf] In (d)(1), we replaced ``33 U.S.C. 2001 through 2073'' with
``33 CFR part 83,'' because 33 U.S.C. 2001-2038 have been repealed, and
the inland navigation rules are now contained in 33 CFR part 83. See
Sec. 303 of Public Law 108-293, and 75 FR 19544, April 15, 2010;
    [ssquf] In (d)(2)(i), we removed the unnecessary phrase ``should
the need arise'' and restructured this paragraph regarding the ability
to reinitialize AIS so that it was easier to understand;
    [ssquf] In (d)(2)(iv), we added the word ``fields'' to identify AIS
data that must be accurately inputted;
    [ssquf] In (d)(2)(v), we limited the applicability of the paragraph
to vessels subject to Sec.  164.46 (b) to distinguish SOLAS based-
requirements applicable to vessels subject to paragraph (c); in
response to comments (see

``Impracticability'' discussion in VI.B.4), we added the words ``and at
least 15 minutes prior to getting underway if the vessel is'' to limit
the time AIS must be in continual operation on moored vessels; and,
lastly, we condensed the discussion of AIS being turned off when
continual operation would compromise safety or a security incident is
imminent;
    [ssquf] In (d)(3), we made minor edits to more clearly distinguish
safety-related AIS text messaging from AIS application-specific
messaging;
    [ssquf] We added paragraph (d)(4) to address the emerging use of
AIS ASM--and to further distinguish AIS ASM from AIS text messaging--by
stating that AIS application-specific messages are permissible, but are
limited to no more than one per minute and to messages consistent with
international standards and registered for use in the United States or
Canada; and
    [ssquf] In the note to paragraph (d), we inserted a reference to,
and World Wide Web address for, the ``U.S. AIS Encoding Guide'' to help
AIS users encode (input) consistent and accurate data; we deleted the
sentence referring to external positioning systems and amended the word
`integration' to the more proper term `interfacing'; current AIS does
not require further integration for its operation. We also added the
sentence ``Most application-specific messages require interfacing to an
external system that is capable of their portrayal, such as equipment
certified to meet Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services
(RTCM) standard 10900 series'' to provide useful information to those
planning to use AIS ASM.
    [cir] In paragraphs (e), Watchkeeping, and (f), Portable AIS, we
made minor edits for clarification.
    [cir] In response to comments, in paragraph (g), Pilot Port, we
replaced the term ``Pilot Port'' with the more specific term ``AIS
Pilot Plug;'' added ``by other than the vessel Master and crew'' to
qualify the subject-to-pilotage-based applicability of this paragraph;
added ``and permanently affixed (not an extension cord) and adjacent''
to clarify positioning of the AIS Pilot Plug; and inserted a reference
to NEMA 5-15 as an example of a 120-volt 50/60 Hz AC power receptacle.
    [cir] In response to comments, in paragraph (h), Exceptions, we
increased the possible maximum duration of a deviation from 1 year to 5
years (for our rationale, see the ``Broader Use of AIS'' discussion in
VI.B.2); inserted examples to supplement our description of types of
vessels that may seek a deviation from AIS requirements; added vessels
whose design or construction makes it impracticable to operate an AIS
device (e.g., a submersible); and added those vessels using an AIS
Class B device that lacks a display as a possible candidate for a
deviation from AIS requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (e).
    [cir] We redesignated paragraph (i), Implementation Date, as
paragraph (j), and inserted a new paragraph (i), Prohibition. In the
new ``Implementation Date'' paragraph (j) we included those vessels
identified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec.  164.46 in the group of
vessels that must install AIS no later than 13 months after publication
of this final rule--the NPRM had proposed 7 months after publication.
For our rationale, see the ``Installation Period'' discussion in
VI.B.9.
    [cir] We added new paragraph (i), Prohibition, to note there is a
prohibition of shore-side broadcasts from AIS Class A or B devices
unless such stations are specifically licensed (e.g., a marine support
station) to do so by the Federal Communications Commission. Class A and
B devices are mobile devices not intended for shore-side use; their
reporting rate is set by speed and course changes and so they have a
navigation status. Using them ashore could confuse mariners on the
water, who may assume they are mobile devices on the water (e.g.,
coming around a bend vice in warehouse ashore) and take action
accordingly.

VI. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    As noted above, we received 91 written submissions to our docket,
and statements from 27 persons who spoke at our public meetings. In
total, there were approximately 475 comments in response to our NPRM.
These written submissions and summaries of our two public meetings are
available in the public docket for this rulemaking, where indicated
under ADDRESSES or use direct link http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869.
    Below, we summarize these comments and any changes we made to the
regulatory text in response. We discuss the NOAD comments first, then
the AIS comments, and, finally, the Regulatory Assessment comments.

A. Notice of Arrival and Departure

    In the NPRM, we used 11 categories to describe our proposed
revisions to NOA regulations. See 73 FR 76302-03, December 16, 2008. We
used nine of these same categories below to discuss comments we
received on the NOAD portion of the NPRM. We did not receive comments
on our proposed Sec.  160.205 to clarify who must submit an NOAD or on
our proposed removal of a suspended requirement related to Customs Form
1302, so we did not use those two categories below. We have inserted
five additional comment discussion categories: Need for NOAD Data and
Agency Collaboration in Obtaining It, Scope and Scale, Financial
Impact, Outer Continental Shelf, and Miscellaneous. Some comments
raised issues in more than one of these categories, so we occasionally
return to a discussion of a comment.
1. Applicability
    One commenter recommended that we clarify the phrase ``port or
place of the United States'' as it pertains to U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) locations. The commenter noted that the Coast Guard used
the term ``port or place of the United States'' in Sec.  160.203, which
sets out the applicability of this rule, without providing a specific
definition. They said that the Coast Guard declined to define this term
as requested by the commenter in its August 5, 2002 submission to the
docket (USCG-2002-11865-0008) for the ``Automatic Identification
System; Vessel Carriage Requirement'' rulemaking that produced a final
rule in 2003. The commenter seeks to clarify this term as it pertains
to a location on the OCS, which can become viewed as a ``place in the
United States'' when a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) is
operating on location. The commenter notes that the Coast Guard's
statement in the 2003 rule (68 FR 9537, 9538, Feb. 28, 2003) suggests
that the Coast Guard may not consider a location on OCS to be a U.S.
port or place.
    The Coast Guard addressed Notice of Arrival issues concerning the
OCS in a January 2011 final rule titled ``Notice of Arrival on the
Outer Continental Shelf'' (76 FR 2254, January 13, 2011). Based on this
and similar comments, however, and as discussed further below in the
NOA ``Definitions'' and ``Outer Continental Shelf'' sections, VI.A.2
and VI.A.14, we have revised Sec.  160.203 to limit the applicability
of regulations in 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, to vessels bound for or
departing from U.S. ports or places in the navigable waters of the
United States or deepwater ports. This revision is intended to make
clear that, with the exception of visits to deepwater ports, visits to
ports or places in the OCS are covered by 33 CFR part 146 and are not
covered by this rule.
    We have placed NOA applicability and exemption provisions from both
the final rule and the current CFR adjacent to each other in the
following derivation and comparison table so that you may

quickly identify changes this final rule is introducing that may impact
your vessel or company.

 Table 1--NOAD Derivation and Comparison Table: Final Rule and Corresponding Current Applicability or Exemption
                                          Paragraphs in 33 CFR Part 160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Corresponding section
Final rule section or paragraph in                                   or paragraph
          33 CFR part 160                      Text              currently in 33 CFR              Text
                                                                       part 160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   160.203(a).................  This subpart applies to     Sec.   160.202(a) &    (a) This subpart applies
                                     the following vessels       (b).                   to U.S. and foreign
                                     that are bound for or                              vessels bound for or
                                     departing from ports or                            departing from ports or
                                     places within the                                  places in the United
                                     navigable waters of the                            States.
                                     United States, as defined                         (b) This subpart does not
                                     in 33 CFR 2.36(a), which                           apply to U.S.
                                     includes internal waters                           recreational vessels
                                     and the territorial seas                           under 46 U.S.C. 4301 et
                                     of the United States, and                          seq., but does apply to
                                     any deepwater port as                              foreign recreational
                                     defined in 33 CFR 148.5:                           vessels.
                                    (1) U.S. vessels in
                                     commercial service, and.
                                    (2) All foreign vessels...
Sec.   160.204(a).................  NO CHANGE IN TEXT FROM      Sec.   160.203(a)....  Except for reporting
                                     CURRENT CORRESPONDING CFR                          notice of hazardous
                                     PARAGRAPH.                                         conditions, the
                                                                                following vessels are
                                                                                exempt from requirements
                                                                                in this subpart:
    (1)...........................  A passenger or offshore        (1)...............  Passenger and supply
                                     supply vessel when                                 vessels when they are
                                     employed in the                                    employed in the
                                     exploration for or in the                          exploration for or in
                                     removal of oil, gas, or                            the removal of oil, gas,
                                     mineral resources on the                           or mineral resources on
                                     continental shelf.                                 the continental shelf.
    (2)...........................  An oil spill response          (2)...............  Oil Spill Recovery
                                     vessel (OSRV) when                                 Vessels (OSRVs) when
                                     engaged in actual spill                            engaged in actual spill
                                     response operations or                             response operations or
                                     during spill response                              during spill response
                                     exercises.                                         exercises.
    (3)...........................  After December 31, 2015, a     (3)...............  (3) Vessels operating
                                     vessel required by 33 CFR                          upon the following
                                     165.830 or 165.921 to                              waters:
                                     report its movements, its                         (i) Mississippi River
                                     cargo, or the cargo in                             between its sources and
                                     barges it is towing.                               mile 235, Above Head of
                                                                                Passes;
                                                                                (ii) Tributaries emptying
                                                                                into the Mississippi
                                                                                River above mile 235;
                                                                                (iii) Atchafalaya River
                                                                                above its junction with
                                                                                the Plaquemine-Morgan
                                                                                City alternate waterway
                                                                                and the Red River; and
                                                                                (iv) The Tennessee River
                                                                                from its confluence with
                                                                                the Ohio River to mile
                                                                                zero on the Mobile River
                                                                                and all other
                                                                                tributaries between
                                                                                those two points.
    (4)...........................  A United States or          .....................  NO CORRESPONDING
                                     Canadian vessel engaged                            PARAGRAPH.
                                     in the salving operations
                                     of any property wrecked,
                                     or rendering aid and
                                     assistance to any vessels
                                     wrecked, disabled, or in
                                     distress, in waters
                                     specified in Article II
                                     of the 1908 Treaty of
                                     Extradition, Wrecking and
                                     Salvage (35 Stat. 2035;
                                     Treaty Series 502).
    (5)...........................  The following vessels       (b)..................  If not carrying certain
                                     neither carrying certain                           dangerous cargo or
                                     dangerous cargo nor                                controlling another
                                     controlling another                                vessel carrying certain
                                     vessel carrying certain                            dangerous cargo, the
                                     dangerous cargo.                                   following vessels are
                                                                                exempt from NOA
                                                                                requirements in this
                                                                                subpart:
        (i).......................  A foreign vessel 300 gross     (1)...............  Vessels 300 gross tons or
                                     tons or less not engaged                           less, except for foreign
                                     in commercial service.                             vessels entering any
                                                                                port or place in the
                                                                                Seventh Coast Guard
                                                                                District as described in
                                                                                33 CFR 3.35-1(b).

        (ii)......................  A vessel operating             (2)...............  Vessels operating
                                     exclusively within a                               exclusively within a
                                     single Captain of the                              Captain of the Port
                                     Port zone. Captain of the                          Zone.
                                     Port zones are defined in
                                     33 CFR part 3.
        (iii).....................  A U.S. towing vessel and a     (4)...............  Towing vessels and barges
                                     U.S. barge operating                               operating solely between
                                     solely between ports or                            ports or places in the
                                     places of the contiguous                           continental United
                                     48 states, Alaska, and                             States.
                                     the District of Columbia.
        (iv)......................  A public vessel...........     (5)...............  Public vessels.
        (v).......................  Except for a tank vessel,      (6)...............  Except for tank vessels,
                                     a U.S. vessel operating                            U.S. vessels operating
                                     solely between ports or                            solely between ports or
                                     places of the United                               places in the United
                                     States on the Great Lakes.                         States on the Great
                                                                                Lakes.
        (vi)......................  A U.S. vessel 300 gross     (b)(1)...............  Vessels 300 gross tons or
                                     tons or less, engaged in                           less, except for foreign
                                     commercial service not                             vessels entering any
                                     coming from a foreign                              port or place in the
                                     port or place.                                     Seventh Coast Guard
                                                                                District as described in
                                                                                33 CFR 3.35-1(b).
        (vii).....................  Each ferry on a fixed       .....................  NO CORRESPONDING
                                     route that is described                            PARAGRAPH.
                                     in an accurate schedule
                                     that is submitted by the
                                     ferry operator, along
                                     with information in
                                     paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(A)-
                                     (J) of this section, to
                                     the Captain of the Port
                                     for each port or place of
                                     destination listed in the
                                     schedule at least 24
                                     hours in advance of the
                                     first date and time of
                                     arrival listed on the
                                     schedule. At least 24
                                     hours before the first
                                     date and time of arrival
                                     listed on the ferry
                                     schedule, each ferry
                                     operator who submits a
                                     schedule under paragraph
                                     (a)(5)(vii) of this
                                     section must also provide
                                     the following information
                                     to the Captain of the
                                     Port for each port or
                                     place of destination
                                     listed in the schedule
                                     for the ferry, and if the
                                     schedule or the following
                                     submitted information
                                     changes, the ferry
                                     operator must submit an
                                     updated schedule at least
                                     24 hours in advance of
                                     the first date and time
                                     of arrival listed on the
                                     new schedule, and updates
                                     on the following items
                                     whenever the submitted
                                     information is no longer
                                     accurate:
                                    (A) Name of the vessel;
                                    (B) Country of registry of
                                     the vessel;
                                    (C) Call sign of the
                                     vessel;
                                    (D) International Maritime
                                     Organization (IMO)
                                     international number or,
                                     if the vessel does not
                                     have an assigned IMO
                                     international number, the
                                     official number of the
                                     vessel;
                                    (E) Name of the registered
                                     owner of the vessel;
                                    (F) Name of the operator
                                     of the vessel;
                                    (G) Name of the vessel's
                                     classification society or
                                     recognized organization,
                                     if applicable;
                                    (H) Each port or place of
                                     destination;
                                    (I) Estimated dates and
                                     times of arrivals at and
                                     departures from these
                                     ports or places; and

                                    (J) Name and telephone
                                     number of a 24-hour point
                                     of contact.
    (6)...........................  April 30, 2015 through      .....................  NO CORRESPONDING
                                     December 31, 2015,                                 PARAGRAPH.
                                     vessels identified as
                                     being subject to 33 CFR
                                     165.830 or 165.921.
Sec.   160.215....................  When a vessel is bound for  (b)(3)...............  Vessels arriving at a
                                     a port or place of the                             port or place under
                                     United States under force                          force majeure.
                                     majeure, it must comply
                                     with the requirements in
                                     this section, but not
                                     other sections of this
                                     subpart. The vessel must
                                     report the following
                                     information to the
                                     nearest Captain of the
                                     Port as soon as
                                     practicable:
                                    (a) The vessel Master's
                                     intentions;
                                    (b) Any hazardous
                                     conditions as defined in
                                     Sec.   160.202; and
                                    (c) If the vessel is
                                     carrying certain
                                     dangerous cargo or
                                     controlling a vessel
                                     carrying certain
                                     dangerous cargo, the
                                     amount and name of each
                                     CDC carried, including
                                     cargo UN number if
                                     applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Definitions
    One commenter recommended that the definition of ``certain
dangerous cargo'' be expanded to include vessels carrying propane and
gasoline so that these vessels would have to use AIS under AIS
regulations redesignated as 33 CFR 164.46(b)(1)(v).
    For purposes of NOA regulations, there is a definition of certain
dangerous cargo (CDC) in redesignated Sec.  160.202, which is
referenced in AIS regulation 33 CFR 164.46(b)(1)(v). The definition of
CDC was revised by a separate final rule entitled ``Notification of
Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes'' (75 FR 59617,
September 28, 2010). We address the recommendation that vessels moving
propane or gasoline as cargo be required to use AIS in the AIS portion
of this final rule preamble because we amended redesignated 33 CFR
164.46(b)(1)(v) in the AIS regulations, instead of changing the NOA
definition of CDC in 33 CFR part 160, which would have triggered other
requirements not requested by the commenter.
    One commenter who operates youth-program sailing vessels,
recommended adding the following sentence to our proposed ``commercial
service'' definition in Sec.  160.202: ``A vessel in which persons on
board are sharing expenses, with no paid staff and which is engaged in
youth development of character and citizenship shall not be considered
a commercial vessel.''
    We note that our definition for ``commercial service'' mirrors the
definition in 46 U.S.C. 2101 and is intended to cover a broad range of
commercial activities. We did not change our definition of commercial
service based on this comment because the suggested revision would
unnecessarily narrow that definition.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Our definition of ``commercial service'' is also very
similar to CBP's definition of ``commercial vessel'' in 19 CFR
4.7b(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A youth vessel inspected as a sailing school vessel under 46 CFR
part 169 would not be considered to be operating in commercial service,
and thus would not be subject to NOA requirements. But the commenter
noted that his youth-program vessels are licensed as Small Passenger
Vessels under 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter T, which would be considered
vessels engaged in commercial service. If these vessels are operating
exclusively within a single COTP zone (see 33 CFR part 3 for a
description of zones), they likely qualify for the exemption in Sec.
160.204(a)(5)(ii). Also, under 33 CFR 160.214, the vessel owner may
request a waiver from NOAD requirements from the local COTP. This
waiver provision allows the COTP to make assessments based on factors
in his or her COTP zone that are difficult to account for in a general
rule.
    One commenter recommended that the current definition of
``operator'' should explicitly state that, for vessels subject to SOLAS
Chapter IX, the operator is the ``company'' listed on the vessel's
Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR), International Safety Management (ISM)
Document of Compliance, and Safety Management Certificate.
    We note that the operator will not always meet the SOLAS Chapter IX
definition of ``company.'' We did not propose to change the definition
of ``operator'' in our NPRM and we did not change the definition based
on this comment because the SOLAS Chapter IX, Reg. 1 definition of
``company'' does not limit the owner, organization, or person who has
assumed responsibility for operation of the ship to the ``company''
listed on the vessel's Continuous Synopsis Record, ISM Document of
Compliance, and Safety Management Certificate. The unchanged definition
of ``operator,'' which appears in redesignated Sec.  160.202,
identifies the ``person including, but not limited to, an owner, a
charterer, or another contractor who conducts, or is responsible for,
the operation of the vessel'' as the operator.
    One commenter noted that, given the availability of dynamic
positioning systems, the definitions of ``port or place of departure''
and ``port or place of destination'' should be revised to capture
locations where vessels transfer passengers or cargo offshore, even if
the vessel is not anchored or moored.
    With respect to this final rule, we do not agree that we should add
the offshore transfer of passengers or cargo as a factor for either of
these definitions. This final rule expands the AIS requirements to
include more vessels; therefore, we are increasing our MDA of

when two or more vessels may be engaged in the activities the commenter
describes. Also, to the extent these offshore activities take place in
U.S. navigable waters, revising these two Sec.  160.202 definitions as
suggested would create a burden for vessels engaged in lightering
offshore, and we decline to impose such a requirement without obtaining
comments on the suggested revision. Additionally, a separate final rule
titled ``Notice of Arrival on the Outer Continental Shelf'' (76 FR
2254) was published January 13, 2011, which addressed NOA requirements
for certain offshore activities.
3. Exemptions
    Commenters gave various reasons why ferries should be exempted from
NOAD requirements: Current CBP practices of prescreening passengers in
Canada and subjecting the vessel to a customs inspection when it
arrives in the United States make Coast Guard NOAD requirements
redundant and unjustifiable; ferries operate on a set arrival and
departure schedule, so the Coast Guard already knows when a ferry will
arrive; risks associated with pre-screened international ferry
passengers are significantly less than risks associated with domestic
ferries; under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, at the United
States-Canadian border, each person must have a passport, United States
passport card, or certain other limited acceptable official documents;
collecting and transmitting data 60 minutes before departure would
eliminate a ferry operator's ability to serve last-minute travelers;
NOA requirements on ferries would impact profitability and increase
labor costs to collect and enter data; ferries that operate between
different COTP zones, even though the ports are nearby, would be
required to submit excessive daily reports even though the government
has failed to show any heightened risk for operating between two COTP
zones, while another operator transiting as far or farther in a single
COTP zone would not be burdened with high costs of submitting 20 NOADs
per day; and NOA requirements would put ferries at a competitive
disadvantage with alternate choices in travel, such as land routes.
    Based on comments received, we have added an NOA reporting
exemption for certain ferries. We recognize that ferries are on fixed
routes and schedules that can result in multiple, predictable visits
within a 24-hour period to the same U.S. port, and that, due to the
nature of ferry operations, it would be impractical to subject ferries
to the same NOA reporting requirements as other vessels. Therefore, in
this final rule we exempt ferries, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(10b),
that provide certain information to COTPs. As discussed above, we have
not included our proposed notice of departure requirement in this final
rule.
    To qualify for this exemption, the ferry operator must submit the
schedule for the ferry to the COTP for each port or place of
destination listed in the schedule by April 30, 2015, or at least 24
hours in advance of the first date and time of arrival listed on the
schedule, in addition to other information listed in new paragraph
Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(vii), including a 24-hour contact number. This
exception more closely aligns with the CBP's exception in 19 CFR
4.7b(c)(1), which does not require ferries to submit either an
electronic passenger arrival manifest or an electronic crew member
arrival manifest. Because we need to ensure that the Coast Guard's 41
COTPs are aware of ferries entering their zones, a blanket exemption
for ferries would not satisfy our need to maintain sufficient MDA.
    One commenter requested an exemption for fixed-route ferry systems
and tour operators remaining within specific geographic areas less than
1 nautical mile from land, whose vessels, routes, and schedules are
established, and that this exemption apply to those operations (a) that
are not on international voyages, (b) that do not provide overnight
accommodations, and (c) whose voyages are less than 6 hours long. The
commenter noted that this last provision would benefit those operations
most impacted by the NOAD/AIS requirements: Small ferry operators,
harbor excursion, and nature cruise operators. Also, a commenter stated
that vessels such as large fish tenders make several short duration
calls in separate COTP zones, triggering back-to-back reporting and an
undue amount of paperwork.
    The final rule contains many exemptions that apply in all U.S.
waters, but there are limits to the use of general exemptions. A given
set of factors, such as those described by the first commenter, may not
pose a safety or security threat in one COTP zone, but may in another.
For those situations, the Coast Guard may issue a waiver under Sec.
160.214 that allows us to make assessments at the COTP level to grant
relief from NOA reporting requirements based on factors specific to a
given port or COTP zone.
    As noted above, since publication of the NPRM, we have added an
exemption for ferries that provide certain general information to
COTPs. First, if the vessels on a fixed route in a specific geographic
area the commenter describes do not meet the definition of ``ferry,''
but operate exclusively within one COTP zone and do not carry CDC, the
vessels would be exempt from NOA requirements under Sec.
160.203(a)(5)(ii). Second, if such vessels are on a fixed route
transiting two or more COTP zones, the COTP in each of those zones has
the discretion to grant a waiver under 33 CFR 160.214. Similarly, the
large fish tenders, mentioned in the second comment, that make short
trips transiting more than one COTP zone may request a waiver from the
COTPs responsible for those zones.
    A commenter recommended that, rather than requiring an operator to
submit for renewal annually, a waiver should remain in force until a
material change occurs, such as a change in route or character of the
navigable waterway. This remain-in-force-until-material-change approach
would be similar to the EPA Vessel General Permit and the state-issued
Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Runoff Permit
automated renewal precedent. This change from the proposed rule would
relieve an operator of yet another administrative task, while
appropriately assigning reporting responsibility.
    We note that if a waiver is granted, the termination date of that
waiver will be at the discretion of the COTP. Over time, factors that
impact security or safety may change. Periodic review of waivers allows
the COTP to determine whether continuing a waiver is consistent with
current security and safety assessments and strategy. We did not make
any changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    One commenter supports NOA requirements for vessels carrying CDC,
but noted that when conditions make such requirements unnecessary, the
Coast Guard should provide a waiver provision.
    We note that Sec.  160.214 provides a waiver provision at the
COTP's discretion if NOA requirements appear to be unnecessary. In
addition, force majeure provisions in Sec.  160.215 of this final rule
contain only limited reporting requirements under certain conditions
beyond the control of the ship's Master. As previously noted, a
separate final rule titled ``Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports;
Certain Dangerous Cargoes'' was published September 28, 2010. That rule
is intended to relieve an unnecessary burden on industry by including
more lower-risk cargoes in the CDC residue category, thereby reducing
the number of notice of arrival

submissions required based on the cargo a vessel is carrying. These new
CDC and CDC-residue definitions currently appear in Sec.  160.204,
which will be redesignated by this final rule as Sec.  160.202. This
section redesignation is intended to move the definitions closer to the
beginning of subpart C. We made no revisions in response to this
waiver-provision comment.
    One commenter stated that NOA regulations should not apply to
tender vessel operations for cruise ships, whether performed by ship's
tender or by a local vessel hired for this purpose. The commenter
stated that non-U.S.-flag cruise ships arriving at or departing from
any U.S. port currently must submit an NOA, irrespective of whether the
previous port of departure or entry is a U.S. or foreign port, and that
these notices cover passenger and crew manifests; that because the
cruise ship is already in a U.S. port, the tender vessel is neither
physically arriving at, nor departing from, a foreign port; that for
CBP purposes, these persons are considered to have arrived or departed
upon arrival or departure of the cruise ship itself; that no persons
are permitted to come ashore unless and until the CBP officers have
cleared the ship, and that further clearance is unnecessary when
passengers depart the ship to the shore, whether departure is
facilitated by a gangway or by a tendering vessel; that these vessels
would also appear to be exempt from NOA requirements because their
temporary operations within a port occur exclusively within a single
COTP zone; and that some tendering vessels may be exempted or may
receive a waiver under the limited local area of operation, but that
exemption may be too narrowly defined, because some tendering vessels
may travel as far as 2 or 3 miles.
    We have not established a separate NOA exemption for tender
vessels, but under Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(ii), to the extent that the
operations of tender vessels are exclusively within a single COTP zone,
and the vessel is not carrying CDC, the tender vessel would not need to
submit an NOA. If a tender vessel is carried onboard an arriving cruise
ship, then a separate NOA need not be submitted for the tender vessel
but if after this arrival the tender vessel begins traveling under its
own power, it would be subject to NOAD requirements unless it fits into
an NOAD exemption. In situations where a local tender vessel services
one or more cruise ships, as long as it operates exclusively in a
single COTP zone and is not carrying CDC, the tender vessel would be
exempt from NOA requirements. In response to this and other comments,
we have added a definition for ``Operating exclusively within a single
Captain of the Port zone'' in Sec.  160.202 to clarify what we mean by
that term.
    One commenter noted that its youth program vessels would not be
able to comply with NOAD requirements because these sailing vessels
have no computers on board and there is no Wi-Fi (wireless Internet or
network connections) available in the inlet from which the vessels
sail. The commenter suggested that this problem could be settled if a
waiver or exemption is granted or if its vessels were considered
noncommercial.
    As noted above in the ``Definitions'' discussion, VI.A.2, we did
not change the definition of ``commercial vessel'' for these vessels
for the reasons stated there, nor do we see a valid basis for creating
an exemption for vessels in this program. However, the waiver section
in subpart C, Sec.  160.214, may be a means to deal with the situation
this commenter described. The COTP may grant a waiver of some or all of
the NOA requirements for a given situation if, based on the COTP's
assessment, a waiver is warranted. Also, note that in response to a
comment discussed below in VI.A.12, we amended Sec.  160.210(a) to
provide the option for a vessel operator who does not have shore-side
support available to fax or phone in an NOA or an update, for a vessel
in an area without internet access or when experiencing technical
difficulties with an onboard computer.
    One commenter expressed support for the proposal to maintain the
exemption for U.S. commercial vessels 300 gross tons or less and not
carrying CDC that transit between ports or places of the United States.
This commenter stated that changing this exemption would adversely
affect commerce, specifically intercoastal commerce, and, subsequently,
interstate commerce.
    This comment relates to Sec.  160.204(a)(4)(vi) in the NPRM. As
proposed, we narrowed the 300-gross-tons-or-less exemption in the
current Sec.  160.203(b)(1) that covers U.S. and foreign vessels. Under
Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(vi) in this final rule, a U.S. vessel 300 gross
tons or less, engaged in commercial service but not carrying CDC, will
be exempt from NOA requirements only if the vessel is not coming from a
foreign port or place. There is no longer an NOA exception for foreign
commercial vessels based on tonnage, but Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(i) does
contain an exemption for foreign vessels 300 gross tons or less not
engaged in commercial service.
    One commenter asked us to consider the 1908 Treaty of Extradition,
Wrecking and Salvage (Salvage Treaty) (35 Stat. 2035; Treaty Series
502). This treaty states, in part, that nothing in customs, coasting,
or other laws or regulations shall restrict in any manner salving
operations of vessels wrecked, disabled, or in distress, or wrecking
appliances ``in the waters or on the shores of the other country in
that portion of the St. Lawrence River through which the International
Boundary line extends, and, in Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair,
Lake Huron, and Lake Superior, and in the Rivers Niagara, Detroit, St.
Clair, and Ste Marie, and the Canals at Sault Ste Marie, and on the
shores and in the waters of the other country along the Atlantic and
Pacific Coasts within a distance of thirty miles from the International
Boundary on such Coasts.'' Art. II of the Salvage Treaty. Regarding
reporting, it states that vessels from either the United States or
Canada employed in salving in the waters of the other shall, as soon as
practicable afterwards, make full report at the nearest custom house of
the country in whose waters such salving takes place. The commenter
also noted that Article II of the Salvage Treaty also permits vessels
from either country to conduct emergency operations in the other's
territorial waters when necessary to assist a disabled vessel in
distress. The commenter concluded that requiring tugs or other vessels
to comply with time clearances and notices prior to and after embarking
on an Article II mission would restrict salving operations, putting
vessels, crews, property, and the environment at risk.
    Based on this comment about the Salvage Treaty which provides
reciprocal rights for United States and Canada in matters of wrecking
and salvage, we have added an exemption for United States- and
Canadian-flag vessels engaged in operations identified by Article II of
this treaty for the waters and shores it specifies. This exemption
appears in revised Sec.  160.204(a)(4).
    One commenter noted that exemptions in proposed Sec.
160.204(a)(4)(iii) for U.S. towing vessels and U.S. barges operating
solely between ports or places of the continental United States should
include passenger vessels operating solely on fixed routes between
ports and places of the continental United States. The commenter states
that exemptions already exist for U.S. towing vessels and barges,
commercial U.S. vessels less than 300 gross tons, public vessels, and
vessels other than tank vessels operating on the Great Lakes.
    We note that certain passenger vessels may qualify for some of the
four

exemptions cited by this commenter, but reasons for those exemptions do
not support creating a general exemption for all passenger vessels.
First, towing vessels and barges do not carry passengers and, like
other vessels, are required to comply with NOA requirements when
carrying CDC. Second, before September 11, 2001, both United States-
and Canadian-flag vessels that operated solely on the Great Lakes and
that were not tank vessels or carrying CDC were exempt under 33 CFR
160.201(c)(8)(2001) from NOA requirements. Our current Great Lakes
exception, Sec.  160.203(b)(6), reflected in redesignated Sec.
160.204(a)(5)(v) of this final rule, is narrower but does not exclude
passenger vessels, and is consistent with the more-than 100-year-old
Boundary Waters Treaty, proclaimed May 13, 1910, with specific
provisions to ``continue free and open [navigation] for the purposes of
commerce'' on the Great Lakes and other United States-Canadian boundary
waters. Third, some passenger vessels would qualify for the exemption
under Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(vi) for U.S. commercial vessels 300 gross
tons or less that are not carrying CDC or coming from a foreign port or
place, and those passenger vessels greater than 300 gross tons would
share size features that warrant NOA requirements. Fourth, the Coast
Guard established the exemption for public vessels not carrying CDC
because such vessels would be owned or operated by a government. We
have not made a change from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    In addition to the exemptions cited, certain passenger vessels will
qualify for an exemption we have added to the final rule for ferries
that provide certain general information to COTPs. Other passenger
vessels seeking exemptions for operating solely on fixed routes between
ports or places in the continental United States may seek a waiver
under 33 CFR 160.214 from each COTP for the zones the vessel plans to
transit. The operating-within-a-single-COTP-zone exception relieves a
reporting burden for non-CDC vessels once they enter a COTP zone but
does not interfere with each COTP having access to NOA information for
vessels subject to NOA requirements that arrive in the COTP's zone.
    One commenter noted that the proposed revision to NOAD regulations
does not affect its vessels transporting passengers and vehicles to the
island of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, but that it would be
unjustifiable to impose NOAD on operations within lakes, bays, or
sounds.
    We note that the exemption for vessels not carrying CDC that
operate exclusively within the same COTP zone may cover most vessels
otherwise subject to NOAD regulations that operate in lakes, bays, or
sounds. If a vessel is transiting more than one COTP zone, however,
then under 33 CFR 160.214, the vessel Master may request a waiver from
NOA requirements. As noted above, based on comments received on the
NPRM, we have included an exemption for ferries that provide certain
general information to the COTPs.
    One commenter noted that the existing Sec.  160.204(b)(2) and
proposed Sec.  160.204(a)(4)(ii) operating-exclusively-in-a-single-
COTP-zone exception is confusing and will decrease MDA. The commenter
stated that this exemption should be removed, made applicable to U.S.-
flag vessels only, or limited to vessels that remain inside the
territorial sea baseline or boundary line. Finally, the commenter
recommended that if the exemption stays, it should be reworded to
remove ``exclusively,'' and should instead read ``A vessel that
transits from one port or place to another port or place within a
single Captain of the Port zone. Captain of the Port zones are defined
in 33 CFR part 3.'' Another commenter cited Congressional mandates in
the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port
Act)(Pub. L. 109-347) to support his request to exclude foreign vessels
from this exemption. Another commenter stated that, regarding the
exemption for operating within a single COTP zone, typically, the NOA
is understood to be required for arrival at a port. The commenter noted
that if a COTP zone area is 200 miles all the way out to the exclusive
economic zone, a vessel does not have to submit an NOA to that place,
be it at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) or a port. The
commenter asked if this single-COTP-zone exemption includes ``voyages
to nowhere;'' for example, a ship that leaves Miami, goes offshore for
24 or 48 hours, stays within the COTP Miami zone, and comes back to
Miami. The commenter also asked whether the exemption is for navigable
waters only or also includes the exclusive economic zone.
    In response to the commenter who finds the term confusing, we have
added a definition of ``operating exclusively within a single Captain
of the Port zone'' to 33 CFR 160.204 that is intended to clarify the
NOAD single-COTP-zone exemption.
    While a vessel's initial arrival in a COTP zone may require the
submission of an NOA, when a vessel is operating exclusively within a
single COTP zone, it may qualify for an exemption under Sec.
160.204(a)(5)(ii) and thus not have to file an NOA or update for each
of its transits within that COTP zone. With regard to the
recommendation that this operating-in-a-single-COTP-zone exemption only
apply to U.S.-flag vessels, we note that foreign-flag vessels are
screened upon arrival to their first U.S. port, as are U.S. commercial
vessels arriving from a foreign port or place. Therefore, the potential
threat posed by a foreign vessel can be assessed and appropriate
measures taken on a case-by-case basis, rather than having this
exception apply only to U.S. vessels. This approach allows for
efficient use of Coast Guard assets and resources and prevents the
imposition of an unnecessary burden on the maritime industry.
    Under regulations in 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, the COTP zone
exemption covers the entire COTP zone, which may extend 200 nautical
miles from shore. If the ``trip to nowhere'' is within a single COTP
zone, then it would not trigger NOA requirements in part 160. Current
regulations in 33 CFR part 146, however, impose separate NOA
requirements for vessels calling on an offshore location. See
specifically Sec. Sec.  146.401 and 146.405. Also, in reference to the
LOOP, Sec.  150.325 identifies NOAD requirements for the owner, Master,
agent, or person in charge of a tanker bound for a manned deepwater
port.
    One commenter noted that the exemption for passenger vessels and
offshore supply vessels (OSVs)(Sec.  160.204(a)(1)) when employed in
the exploration for or in the removal of oil, gas, or mineral resources
on the continental shelf, and for oil spill response vessels (OSRVs)
(Sec.  160.204(a)(2)) when engaged in actual spill response operations
or during spill response exercises, should not extend to foreign-flag
vessels. The commenter notes that, as written, the exemption for OSRVs
and OSVs may be interpreted as allowing similar foreign vessels to
enter or leave U.S. ports without reporting, and that such vessels
currently work ``under the radar'' of government agencies and thus
create security vulnerabilities. The commenter recommended that the
Coast Guard add ``U.S.'' to Sec.  160.204(a) to indicate that exempt
vessels do not include foreign-flag vessels. The commenter cautioned
that if the Coast Guard left the final rule written as the proposed
rule, the final rule would allow foreign-flag offshore supply vessels
to come and go at will in this country, and that this would

represent a security risk to America, in direct violation of the law.
    We note that under Sec.  160.204(a), OSRVs, whether foreign flag or
U.S. flag, will continue to be exempt from requirements in 33 CFR part
160, subpart C, when they are engaged in actual spill response
operations or during spill response exercises, as will U.S. and foreign
passenger vessels and offshore supply vessels when employed in the
exploration for or in the removal of oil, gas, or mineral resources on
the continental shelf. As we have noted, however, we recently published
an NOA-OCS final rule (76 FR 2254, Jan. 13, 2011) that covers notice-
of-arrival requirements on the OCS and satisfies SAFE Port Act
implementation requirements intended to improve maritime security
through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. For NOA
requirements on the Outer Continental Shelf, see 33 CFR part 146. We
did not make any changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should consider that
individual vessel waivers by COTP will not work given the number of
vessels visiting various ports at various times and having to be
considered individually.
    We anticipate that COTPs will be able to meet the demand created by
waiver requests. We recognize that factors presented by certain vessels
that will be subject to NOAD requirement for the first time under this
final rule may warrant a waiver for a specific vessel within a specific
COTP zone, and that COTPs may receive more waiver requests in response
to this final rule. We have taken into consideration the COTP's
workload under the waiver provision of Sec.  160.214 and have reviewed
blanket exemption requests extensively to determine if relief may be
granted at the national level in this final rule. We have determined
that allowing COTPs to grant waivers should continue to be a means we
leave open to provide relief from NOAD requirements when such relief is
justified in a specific situation.
    One commenter focused on the OCS and requested that the Coast Guard
ensure that the exemptions from NOA only apply to U.S.-flag vessels,
and that this exemption should be across the board--not just for
offshore supply vessels, but for OSRVs and some of the other vessels
that have exemptions.
    We have concluded that limiting exemptions to U.S.-flag vessels is
impracticable because it would place an unnecessary burden on foreign-
flag vessels, which may interfere with commerce. The NOA requirements
serve a variety of purposes, including, but not limited to, maintaining
MDA and scheduling inspections. Once a foreign-flag ship has been
screened and appropriate activities (inspection, boarding, etc.) have
been carried out, the Coast Guard has assessed, and in some cases
reduced, the risk the ship may pose.
    One commenter stated that, from the enforcement side, there is
sometimes a difference between how arrivals and departures are
reported. The commenter offered the following example: A vessel arrives
in Miami and submits an NOA for Miami. While the vessel is in port, it
shifts to Fort Lauderdale, which is still within the COTP Miami Zone.
But for the NOD to be accurate, it would report Fort Lauderdale. The
commenter asks whether this scenario creates enforcement confusion and
if there is some means to address this.
    We do not believe situations like this will create an issue as it
pertains to enforcement. The COTP is aware of his or her geographical
boundaries and the ports within those boundaries. And, as we discuss
elsewhere, we have eliminated our proposed notice of departure. But if
a vessel is operating in a single COTP zone and submits an NOA from a
departure port within that zone that is different from their arrival
port in that zone, it will not create confusion.
    One commenter who reported making frequent near-port offshore
transits offered his assessment that local Coast Guard concerns deal
with the inability to monitor vessel traffic offshore. The commenter
stated that one of the problems in the industry is the Coast Guard's
inconsistent application of NOA exemptions or overriding regulations in
response to security concerns.
    We work to ensure consistent application of the NOA regulations
throughout all U.S. ports by establishing an internal NOA enforcement
policy that provides guidance to all field units. We also provide
general guidance to clarify the intent or purpose of certain provisions
of the NOA and to ensure it is being applied consistently throughout
the Coast Guard. This information is located in the General Information
portion of the ``Port State Control'' page on Homeport (http://www.homeport.uscg.mil/) and on the NVMC World Wide Web site (http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov). We have also published a notice of policy in the
Federal Register that addresses how the definition of ``port or place
of destination'' is interpreted by the Coast Guard. See 71 FR 62210,
October 24, 2006. Please note that while we try to ensure consistency,
there are port specific factors that the COTP must take in
consideration when evaluating the potential risk that may be associated
with a vessel arrival to his or her zone.
4. NOA Information
    One commenter supported the proposed rule's added NOA requirements
to submit the Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number and to
report whether the vessel is 300 gross tons or less, but recommended
that the Coast Guard require the submission of information on vessel
type, last and next port of call, and hull type for tankers and barges.
    We do not believe that collecting vessel and hull type of tankers
and barges through NOAD reporting requirements is necessary because we
are able to determine vessel and hull type through other means.
    Section 160.206 and Table 160.206(2)(iii) and (ix) of this final
rule require reporting of the port or place of the United States a
vessel will visit, as well as its last port or place of departure.
Based on this comment, however, we did make a nomenclature revision,
adopting defined terms for use in Table 160.206(2)(ix) by changing the
proposed ``Last Port of Call'' to ``Last port or place of departure,''
and making a corresponding change in Table 160.206(2)(x).
    One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard specify the
Universal Location Code (ULC), developed by the Federal Industry
Logistics Standardization (FILS) Committee, as the means to report the
data element in proposed Table 160.206(2)(iii)(``For the port or place
of the United States to be visited, list the name of the receiving
facility, the port or place, the city, and the state.''). The commenter
noted that this revision would allow the Coast Guard to easily cross
reference information on locations collected by other agencies to
improve safety and enhance security. The commenter identified a
government World Wide Web site where the list of location codes would
be available.
    As noted, Sec.  160.206(a) and Table 160.206(2)(iii) of this final
rule, as in the proposed rule, requires the name of the receiving
facility, port or place, city and state. This information is available
to vessel owners and provides the necessary detail required for this
final rule to meet its PWSA objectives of obtaining information
necessary to help enhance the safety and security of U.S. ports and
waterways and to permit vessel traffic management. We are active
participants of the Federal Initiative for Navigation Data Enhancement
(FINDE)

and proponents of the FINDE ULC. Unfortunately, we are not currently
able to use the ULC in our enterprise systems. Also, we would want to
initiate a separate rulemaking to invite comments specifically on the
use of ULCs for NOAs before imposing such a requirement. Therefore, we
have not made any changes based on this comment.
    One commenter stated that the new requirement for vessels to submit
their estimated time of arrival to the entrance to the port (if
applicable) would prove extremely helpful for vessels calling on the
Lower Mississippi River.
    We concur that it would be helpful for the Coast Guard to receive a
vessel's estimated date and time of arrival to the entrance of the
port, but because we can obtain this data through other existing means,
we have decided not to include this new proposed item (2)(xi) in Table
160.206 in this final rule. This paragraph would have required the
submission of the estimated date and time of arrival of when a vessel
would reach, for example, the sea buoy, pilot station, or COLREGS
demarcation line of a port, if applicable. The Coast Guard can use AIS
data in combination with the essential, current NOA requirement in
paragraph (a)(2)(iv), for a vessel to estimate the date and time of its
arrival ``[f]or the port or place of the United States to be visited,''
to provide MDA on when the vessel will reach the entrance to the port.
    One commenter wanted the Coast Guard to take a more aggressive
stance on Certificate of Adequacy compliance regarding maritime
pollution, and recommended that we use this rule to require the
submission, as part of NOADs, of two IMO forms, the Advance Notice Form
(ANF) discussed in MEPC.1/Circ.644, and the Waste Delivery Receipt
(WDR) discussed in MEPC.1/Circ.645, to provide necessary visibility to
verify COAs and help implement the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The commenter stated that
the timing differential between NOA and ANF and WDR submissions would
need to be rectified.
    The submission of IMO forms to verify the Certification of Adequacy
to implement MARPOL, and the implementation of a mandatory mechanism
for ships to request shoreside reception services and a follow-up
questionnaire are outside the scope of this rulemaking. We have not
made any changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    At the March 12, 2009, public meeting on MARPOL Reception
Facilities (see 74 FR 8807, February 26, 2009), we raised a number of
challenges regarding the shoreside waste reception issue. We noted that
a mandatory mechanism needs to be implemented for ships to request
shoreside waste reception services and also to report whether services
were provided as requested.
    One commenter stated that MARPOL reception facility reporting
should not be integrated into the electronic Notice of Arrival and
Departure (eNOAD) program because the commenter supports the use of
recently published IMO standardized Advance Notice Forms and Waste
Delivery Receipt as the vehicle by which port states can collect
information on the adequacy of MARPOL reception facilities in their
nations. The commenter noted that integrating various information needs
of these forms would be difficult to do in a clear and concise fashion,
given the already complex eNOAD format. The commenter also stated that
waste reception facility data, under a separate system, can be routed
directly to the appropriate Coast Guard officials for review and
action, and obviate the need for these officials to access the eNOAD
database to retrieve reception facility information.
    The Coast Guard has developed the eNOAD application, accessible via
the National Vessel Movement Center's (NVMC's) World Wide Web site, to
provide a vessel with the means of fulfilling the arrival and departure
notification requirements of the Coast Guard and CBP online.
    While we may agree with this MARPOL reception facility comment, as
noted above in response to a commenter with a different view, revising
the NOA rule to integrate MARPOL reception facilities into NOAD
requirements, and thus eNOAD application, is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
    One commenter agreed with the Coast Guard in requiring only the
last five foreign ports for domestic vessels, but the commenter stated
that it is very important that foreign vessels supply the Coast Guard
with the last five ports, whether domestic or foreign, because the
Coast Guard needs to start looking at the total picture of the U.S.
maritime domain.
    We note that, as proposed in the NPRM, we have added item (2)(ix)
to Table 160.206, which, under Sec.  160.206(a), requires a vessel,
domestic or foreign, to list its last port of departure. We have also
converted two data fields for the last five ports or places visited to
the last five foreign ports or places visited. See Table 160.206(2)(i)
& (ii). Once the vessel has entered U.S. waters, the last-port-or-
place-of-departure data generated by Table 160.206(2)(ix) will provide
us with sufficient data on a vessel's travel within U.S. waters to
maintain MDA.
    This information is necessary for Coast Guard compliance
verification examination matrixes to determine the threat a vessel
poses to a U.S. port. The last-five-foreign-ports information is also
needed for the Condition of Entry (COE) Program which assesses
effectiveness of anti-terrorism measures in foreign ports. If effective
anti-terrorism measures are not in place, then conditions of entry are
imposed on vessels bound for the United States--see e.g., recent COE
notice (79 FR 33771, June 12, 2014). This information has also been
useful to screen to determine if a vessel has visited a country
impacted by the Ebola virus outbreak within its last five ports of
call.
    One commenter stated that the COTP in Houston needs to know that a
vessel came from New Orleans, and prior to that, that it came from
Mobile. The commenter noted the Coast Guard needs to be able to track a
vessel moving through the Gulf of Mexico.
    As mentioned above, we have added item (2)(ix) in Table 160.206,
which, under Sec.  160.206(a), requires vessels to list their last port
or place of departure. So whether a vessel is coming from a foreign
port or place or another U.S. port or place, the COTP in Houston in the
commenter's example will have access to that information. If a COTP is
interested in identifying the track of a vessel once it is in U.S.
waters, there are other means and methods (e.g., AIS and VTS data) at
the COTP's disposal which can be used to determine this without
requiring vessels to list more than their last U.S. port or place of
departure.
    One commenter stated that while it may be outside the scope of this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard should add the following recommendation to
the scope of the rulemaking. The commenter recommends that adding more
data elements that combine Coast Guard reporting with additional
customs reporting could eliminate an entire set of paperwork that is
processed for the CBP, namely, CBP Form I-418, Passenger List--Crew
List. The commenter noted that this is not the first time the commenter
has made this recommendation and that, if adopted, the change would
save both the private sector and government agencies a great deal of
time and money. Another commenter stated that many other improvements
can be made to this reporting system and repeated a past suggestion for
a working group of users sitting together with the Coast Guard and the
CBP to identify opportunities

for improving and streamlining the report.
    We are working with the CBP to address any eNOAD application issues
related to Form I-418. Regarding the form itself, the CBP has noted
that Form I-418, which is used by Masters, owners, or agents of vessels
in complying with sections 231 and 251 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, is completed upon the vessel's arrival at its first
port in the United States. See 75 FR 1069, January 8, 2010. The CBP is
looking for ways to streamline and automate that process (see the CBP
supporting statement for information collection 1651-0103). We have not
made a change from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    We remain open to suggestions for improving the eNOAD reporting
system. We have forwarded the suggestion for a working group to the
responsible Coast Guard office. Our focus here, however, is on specific
comments on the revisions to the CFR that we proposed in our NPRM or
specific comments on how we might best revise NOAD regulations. We have
made no changes from the proposed rule based on these comments.
    One commenter stated that the massive amount of reporting
information and duplicate reports are indicative of a system that is
``working harder and not smarter.'' The commenter presented as an
example that the Coast Guard proposes NOAs that require four vessel
identifiers. The commenter stated that this means that on every NOA, we
are reporting the name, call sign, official number, and now the MMSI
number, and that three of these are unique vessel identifiers.
    In Sec.  160.206(a) and item (1) in Table 160.206, we require
submission of the vessel's name, call sign, IMO international number
(or an official number if no IMO number), and, if applicable, MMSI
number, because multiple vessels may carry the same name. These four
NOA data elements allow us to more quickly either authenticate the
vessel's reported identity or detect problems with those submitted
data. In the latter case, we seek to determine if there is an error in
one or more of the identifiers or if a vessel is attempting to submit
false or improper identification data.
    One commenter stated that Coast Guard field units are continuously
telling them that they have to report all broken equipment on the NOA.
The commenter asserted this is not required currently or in the revised
regulations, but that there is a lack of clarity on this point.
Finally, the commenter stated that whenever there is a requirement to
submit a CG-2692 form (Report of Marine Accident, Injury or Death) for
a casualty report, they are constantly asked why they did not report it
on the NOA.
    Regarding broken equipment, we work to ensure that our field units
know NOA requirements, including the one for reporting broken
navigation equipment on the NOA. Existing regulations do require an NOA
report on the operational condition of navigation equipment required by
33 CFR 164.35, and, as we proposed, Item (6) in Table 160.206 of this
final rule expands that requirement to report on the operational
condition of all navigation equipment (including AIS) required in 33
CFR part 164. Moreover, in a note to Table 160.206, we specify that
submitting this report in the NOA, ``indicating that navigation
equipment is not operating properly[,] does not serve as notice to the
District Commander, Captain of the Port, or Vessel Traffic Center,
under 33 CFR 164.53,'' which has additional reporting requirements.
Regarding casualties, if the marine casualty involves a hazardous
condition as defined by redesignated Sec.  160.202, the notice given to
the nearest Coast Guard Sector Office or Group Office, as required by
redesignated 33 CFR 160.216, will satisfy 46 CFR 4.05-1 casualty
reporting requirements. Note, however, that there is a separate
requirement under 46 CFR 4.05-10 that requires a written report on Form
CG-2692. The NOA is not used to satisfy the redesignated Sec.  160.216
requirements to report hazardous conditions, but in cases where the
failure of a vessel's navigation equipment creates a hazardous
condition, the question as to why that condition was not reported on
the NOA is appropriate.
    One commenter expressed problems discerning the requirements,
particularly with immigration agencies and the CBP, regarding whether
to use the spelling from a national passport or a U.S. Visa on our
reports.
    We cannot address issues that pertain to the CBP or other agency
regulations that involve immigrants; for purposes of Coast Guard NOAD
regulations, however, we have left it to the owner or operator to
determine which document more accurately reflects the spelling of a
person's name. For questions pertaining to CBP electronic passenger and
crew manifest requirements, please visit the NVMC's World Wide Web site
at http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov or call the CBP at<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension
238.
    One commenter who occasionally deals in lightering, particularly in
other areas of the world, was not sure whether to list a lightering
location as a last port, because it is not officially a terminal or a
dock. The commenter expressed problems with explaining to Masters of
his company's vessels how to deal with transits of U.S. and
international canals, such as the Panama Canal. The commenter offered
an example of whether a vessel would need to report coming through the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal on a nearby coastwise voyage.
    If a vessel is engaged in lightering, then the lightering position
would not be considered a port or place under 33 CFR part 160, and this
not would trigger part 160 applicability unless, while lightering, the
vessel anchors or moors in the navigable waters of the United States or
at a deepwater port. If a vessel anchors or moors in foreign waters
while it is lightering, than that lightering position would be
considered a foreign port or place and must be included on vessel's NOA
under Sec.  160.206 (a) and item (2)(i) in Table 160.206, if it was one
of the last five foreign ports or places visited. Regarding canals, if
a vessel is only transiting through a canal, and does not anchor or
moor during that transit, then it would not be considered as arriving
at or departing from a port or place.
    We had proposed to add new fields for crewmember passport country
of issuance and passport date of expiration in Table 160.206(4)(v) &
(vi), and for persons in addition to crew, passport country of issuance
and passport date of expiration fields in Table 160.206(5)(v) & (vi).
We have not included these new fields in our final rule because we
consider this information to be a matter of record based on CBP
requirements.
5. NOD Information
    One commenter discussing fishing industry vessels stated that the
largest issue with the proposed rule is the time it takes to get an
accurate NOD list of persons sailing and to input these data into
electronic format for transmittal to the Coast Guard. As further
discussed in the ``When to Submit an NOD'' section below, VI.A.8, based
on comments on the NPRM, we have eliminated our proposal to require
NODs. We have deleted Sec.  160.213(a); this final rule does not
require NODs.
6. Electronic Submission
    One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard allow continued use
of the Excel Workbook format for submission of NOADs via email, which
the commenter believes is more process-effective. The commenter noted
that some vessels are not set up to connect directly to the Internet to
make real-time submissions, and that it is more process-effective for
the ship's Master to submit

updates to the NVMC directly rather than by going through a vessel
agency service. The commenter stated that the format and process for
submitting NOADs and updates in the Excel format has been of minimum
administrative burden for their Masters and is easily supportable
without requiring direct real-time Internet connectivity from the ship.
    Under this final rule, and as indirectly reflected in the proposed
rule, we will accept the following electronic forms: Submission through
the NVMC eNOAD World Wide Web site, XML, which includes Excel Workbook
format. XML spreadsheets may be submitted via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Based on this comment, we are revising the final
rule from the proposed Sec.  160.210 to specify that these currently
available options, or other methods made available on http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov in the future, may be used to satisfy this
requirement.
    One commenter stated that many commercial fishing vessels do not
have the capability to submit NOAD information electronically, and
therefore the rule creates an additional administrative workload that
may require hiring additional administrative personnel because the
information would have to be sent by a shore-based office.
    We have sought to impose the least burden possible while still
meeting our regulatory objectives of obtaining information necessary to
help ensure that we reach our PWSA objective of enhancing the safety
and security of U.S. ports and waterways and to permit vessel traffic
management. Many commercial fishing vessels would not be required to
submit NOADs because they would qualify for an exemption, such as
operating exclusively within a single COTP zone (Sec.
160.204(a)(5)(ii)) or being a U.S. vessel 300 gross tons or less,
engaged in commercial service and not coming from a foreign port or
place (Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(vi)).
    Regarding fishing vessels and other vessels, we do not believe our
final rule will cause additional costs based on some vessels not having
the capability for electronic submission other than vessels we have
already estimated costs for in the regulatory analysis (RA). CBP
requires electronic submission on most, if not all, of the vessels
added by our final rule. Computer and internet access costs were
captured by CBP in its 2005 Electronic Transmission of Passenger and
Crew Manifests for Vessels and Aircraft (aka Advance Passenger
Information System or APIS) final rule (70 FR 17820, April 7, 2005)
that required all commercial vessels (minus ferries) ``arriving in the
United States from any place outside the United States,'' to submit
arrival manifests electronically; therefore, we did not include the
cost of computers or internet service for vessels affected by our rule.
The Coast Guard assumed that vessel owners and operators will submit
arrival information from onboard the vessel and not leverage any
efficiencies from centralized fleet reporting.
    We did revise the current Mississippi-River-and-tributaries
exemption, but we anticipate that most of those vessels will be able to
take advantage of other exemptions afforded in the final rule such as
the single-COTP-zone or U.S.-vessel-300-gross-tons-or-less exemptions.
The Coast Guard does not collect information specifically on vessels
that transit solely on the Mississippi and its tributaries; therefore,
we are unable to quantify the number of vessels that take advantage of
the current exemption.
    Also, in our final rule we created an exemption for certain
ferries. Those on a fixed route between two or more COTP zones qualify
for an exemption if they make a one-time submission as specified in
Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(vii) to qualify for the exemption, and are required
to make future submissions only if their schedules or other submitted
information changes. This alternative submission would not require a
computer, and submission of such information has been a common industry
practice since 2003 to obtain waivers from COTPs, and therefore any
ferry lacking the capability for electronic submission would not incur
additional costs as a result of our final rule.
    One commenter noted that limiting eNOAD submissions to this World
Wide Web-based program may pose problems when severe weather events
cause power outages; for example, companies did not have Internet
service post-Hurricane Katrina until cell phone towers were rebuilt and
cable re-laid. The commenter recommended that the Coast Guard provide
an alternative method to report to the NVMC.
    This final rule does not limit submissions to only NVMC World Wide
Web-based applications. It also allows for other electronic forms of
submission such as email. But in cases where communication
infrastructure is damaged and telecommunication services are not
available due to natural disasters such as Katrina, the COTP may waive
any or all NOA requirements within her or his COTP zone; also, a vessel
may request a waiver under 33 CFR 160.214 of any or all NOAD
requirements.
    One commenter noted that it operates between the eastern Caribbean
and the Mid-Atlantic States, and would like to alert the Coast Guard to
some obstacles that might arise by requiring only electronic
submissions. The commenter stated that one of its bases is St. Thomas,
USVI, and on most of its vessels, the computers--if they have them on
board--do not support the downloading of the notices or responses to
the notices. The commenter noted that if its employees go shoreside to
comply, they need to use Internet cafes that have computers and
technology dating back to the 1990s. The commenter further stated that
if they go to the homes of fellow captains, they have dial-up systems
instead of broadband, and it takes hours to comply, so that doing away
with paper notification entirely presents an obstacle.
    We understand that some vessel owners may submit shoreside NOAs but
the Coast Guard does not collect information on the number of vessels
that utilize this method of NOA submission. For the regulatory
analysis, we assumed that all NOADs will be submitted from the vessel,
and not take advantage of efficiencies from centralized fleet
reporting. As use of the Internet continues to become more popular
including wireless Internet access via cellular/satellite networks, we
anticipate greater access to faster Internet transmissions in more
locations. Also, the vessel Master, owner, or agent may take advantage
of XML spreadsheets--readily available on the NVMC's World Wide Web
site--that can be downloaded and retained for future use to minimize
the time needed to transmit NOAs.
    As stated in the NPRM, mandating electronic submission of NOAs
allows the Coast Guard to quickly and automatically process, validate,
and screen arrival notices. See 73 FR 76303, December 16, 2008. As
discussed in VI.A.12, however, we amended Sec.  160.210(a) to permit
phone or fax submission of an NOA or an update, in limited
circumstances.
7. When To Submit an NOA
    As noted in the Exemptions section above, one commenter reported a
problem with being able to meet the requirement to submit a manifest
either 96 hours or 1 hour before departure because his youth-program
sailing vessels, which sometime sail to Canada from Tacoma, WA, do not
have computers onboard, and there is no wireless Internet or network
connections in the inlet from which these vessels sail.

    Under existing Custom and Border Protection requirements in 19 CFR
4.7b and 4.64, commercial vessels \2\ arriving from a foreign port or
departing for a foreign port are required to submit arrival or
departure manifests electronically. This Coast Guard final rule only
requires NOAs, and those are to be submitted at the same times that CBP
requires that arrival manifests be submitted. These youth-program
sailing vessels may not meet CBP's definition of ``commercial vessel''
and thus may not trigger CBP requirement, but the Coast Guard may
consider them vessels in commercial service and thus subject to 33 CFR
part 160 NOAD requirements, unless they otherwise fit into an
exemption.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There are differences in the terms and definitions CBP and
the Coast Guard use regarding commercial vessels. In 19 CFR 4.7b
(a), CBP defines ``commercial vessel'' as ``any civilian vessel
being used to transport persons or property for compensation or
hire.'' In 33 CFR 160.202, the Coast Guard uses the 46 U.S.C. 2101
definition of ``commercial service'' (``any type of trade or
business involving the transportation of goods or individuals,
except service performed by a combatant vessel'') to identify
vessels in Sec.  160.203 that are subject to NOAD regulations.
    \3\ For arrival submission times, compare 19 CFR 4.7b(b)(2) with
33 CFR 160.212(a)(4); for departure submission times, compare 19 CFR
4.64 (b)(2) with 33 CFR 160.213(a). Because these youth program
sailing vessels occasionally sail to and from Canada, they would not
be eligible for the exception of operating within a single COTP zone
under Sec.  160.204(a)(5)(ii) for such trips because they would be
leaving the COTP zone and thus not operating exclusively within it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we noted previously, under Sec.  160.212, the time an NOA must
be submitted varies based on the duration of the vessel's voyage. Under
Sec.  160.214, however, a vessel may request a waiver of NOAD
requirements from the COTPs whose zones it plans to transit. This
waiver provision allows the COTP to make assessments based on specific
factors about the vessel or COTP zone that are difficult to reflect in
a general rule without imposing unnecessary burdens.
    One commenter wrote that lowering the applicability threshold for
NOA reporting would not impact its fleet, which operates exclusively in
the Great Lakes, but the commenter found some aspects of the current
eNOAD reporting timelines to be punitive to vessels trading exclusively
within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system. This commenter
requests that the number of hours before arrival that an NOA is due, as
stated in Sec.  160.212, should be reduced to 6 hours for vessels
engaged in non-ocean-going, short-haul (voyage of 24 hours or less)
shipping. Also, for voyages of less than 24 hours, vessels may also
have to contact local COTP.
    We considered this request to relax the timelines in 33 CFR 160.212
for submitting NOAs and NOA updates for vessels in general engaged in
non-ocean-going, short-haul shipping, but have determined that this
information is needed from such vessels on the timelines we proposed so
that the Coast Guard and other federal entities have sufficient time to
screen these vessels. As proposed in the NPRM, however, we did add a
provision that would allow an NOA submission 60 minutes or more before
departure for U.S. vessels 300 gross tons or less, engaged in
commercial service and not carrying CDC, that are coming from a foreign
port or place on a voyage of less than 24 hours. See Sec.
160.212(a)(3) and discussion in NPRM at 73 FR 76303, December 16, 2008.
As discussed below in the Financial Impact section, VI.A.12, in
response to another comment on the NPRM and provisions in the Boundary
Waters Treaty (36 Stat. 2448; Treaty Series 548), we have revised Sec.
160.212(a)(3) to extend its provisions to Canadian-flag vessels
arriving directly from Canada, via boundary waters, to a U.S. port or
place in the Great Lakes.
    We note that for vessels subject to the 60-minutes-before-departure
requirement, under Sec.  160.214, a U.S. or foreign vessel may seek a
waiver from the requirement for when NOA or NOA updates must be
submitted. The COTP, who can evaluate the waiver request based on the
circumstances of the COTP zone in which the vessel will arrive, may
grant a waiver ``for any vessel or class of vessels upon finding that
the vessel, route, area of operations, conditions of the voyage, or
other circumstances are such that application of this subpart is
unnecessary or impractical for purposes of safety, environmental
protection, or national security.''
    One commenter asked the Coast Guard to consider allowing vessels
with a voyage of less than 24 hours to submit an NOA prior to
departure. The commenter stated that this change would reduce the
number of NOAs that need to be updated because data are not really
known until departure. This commenter noted that current discussions of
the ``Seaborne Highway'' suggest that the number of vessels with
relatively short port calls and voyage times, and those operating on
established schedules, is expected to increase. Finally, this commenter
stated there is an inability to submit NOAs with consecutive ports
(consolidated NOAs).
    We acknowledge that for vessels making short voyages it would be
more advantageous to the owner or operator if NOAs could be submitted
as close to departure as possible. The Coast Guard and other government
agencies, however, need the time specified in the final rule to analyze
and act on NOA data. We also need NOAs to reflect current data.
    Section 160.212(a)(3) of this final rule permits U.S. commercial
vessels of 300 gross tons or less, arriving from a foreign port or
place on a voyage of less than 24 hours, to submit an NOA up to 60
minutes before departure. Whether the voyage is short or long, because
of the nature of their cargo, we require towing vessels moving CDC
solely between ports or places of the contiguous 48 states, Alaska, and