[Federal Register: April 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 83)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23309-23320]
[DOCID:fr29ap08-16]

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

Part II

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

33 CFR Part 169

Long Range Identification and Tracking of Ships; Final Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 169

[Docket No. USCG-2005-22612]
RIN 1625-AB00

Long Range Identification and Tracking of Ships

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule requires, consistent with international law, certain
ships to report identifying and position data electronically. This rule
implements an amendment to chapter V of the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), regulation 19-1, and enables the
Coast Guard to correlate Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT)
data with data from other sources, detect anomalies, and heighten our
overall Maritime Domain Awareness. This rule is consistent with the
Coast Guard's strategic goals of maritime security and maritime safety,
and the Department's strategic goals of awareness, prevention,
protection, and response.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 29, 2008. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on May 29, 2008.

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-2005-22612 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 at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Mr. William Cairns, Office of Navigation Systems, Coast Guard,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Acronyms
II. Regulatory History
III. Background and Purpose
    A. LRIT History--International and Domestic
    B. Description of the LRIT System
    C. Discussion of Rule
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes From Proposed Rule
    A. Ship Requirements
    B. LRIT System
    C. Coast Guard Resources and Enforcement
    D. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Evaluation
    A. Executive Order 12866
    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

I. Acronyms

AIS Automatic Identification System
ASP Application Service Provider
COTP Captain of the Port
CSP Communications Service Provider
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOT Department of Transportation
DSC Digital Selective Calling
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
GMDSS Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
HF High Frequency
ICC Intelligence Coordination Center
IDC International Data Center
IDE International Data Exchange
IMO International Maritime Organization
ITU International Telecommunication Union
LRIT Long Range Identification and Tracking
MDA Maritime Domain Awareness
MF Medium Frequency
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MSC Maritime Safety Committee
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NOA Notice of Arrival
NM Nautical Mile
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NVMC National Vessel Movement Center
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
SAR Search and Rescue
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended
SOLAS V/19-1 SOLAS Chapter V Regulation 19-1
SSAS Ship Security Alert System
VHF Very High Frequency
VMS Vessel Monitoring System
VTS Vessel Traffic Service

II. Regulatory History

    On October 3, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Long Range Identification and Tracking of Ships in the
Federal Register (72 FR 56600). We received seven letters commenting on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

III. Background and Purpose

    This section discusses the United States' involvement in the
development of the international long-range identification and tracking
(LRIT) scheme, provides a summary of the LRIT amendment to chapter V of
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS),
regulation 19-1, and describes how LRIT information will be generated
and processed.

A. LRIT History--International and Domestic

    In our NPRM published October 3, 2007, we described previous
international and domestic actions leading to our proposal to implement
the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) amendment requiring ships
to which SOLAS regulation V/19-1 applies to broadcast long-range
identification and tracking information so that it could be received by
flag States, port States and coastal States (see 72 FR 56601-56602).
Our NPRM was published during the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) 83rd session of the Maritime Safety Committee (``Committee''),
MSC 83, held from October 1 to 12, 2007.
    At this October meeting, the Committee adopted Resolution
MSC.254(83), which permits the master of a ship or the Administration
(the U.S. Coast Guard for U.S. ships) to reduce LRIT transmissions to
once per 24-hour period or to switch off the ship-borne LRIT equipment
when the ship is undergoing repairs in port or dry-dock or when a ship
is laid up for a long period.
    Another efficiency and cost saving that was discussed at MSC 83 was
reducing the number of automatic LRIT information transmissions from
four (4) per day to two (2) per day. See MSC 83/28, Report of the MSC
on its 83rd session, pages 59 and 60 for discussion of this issue.
Reducing required transmissions to two per day would reduce the
communications cost of

transmissions from ship-to-Data-Center by half. This change would
likely bring the cost of LRIT information supplied to data centers more
in line with the likely demand of states requesting LRIT information.
The decision on this item was deferred until MSC 84, to be held from
May 7 to 16, 2008. The Coast Guard believes this proposal deserves
serious consideration as a cost saving vehicle that has little, if any,
adverse impact on the maritime domain awareness benefits to be derived
from LRIT. If the number of transmissions required by SOLAS regulation
V/19-1 is changed by IMO action, then in a separate rulemaking the
Coast Guard would revise the number of LRIT transmissions required by
its LRIT regulations.
    Additionally, MSC 83 adopted Resolution MSC.242(83), reflecting its
decision that Contracting Governments (flag States, port States and
coastal States) could request, receive, and make use of LRIT
information for safety and marine environmental protection purposes, in
addition to maritime security and search and rescue purposes. For
purposes of SOLAS, a Contracting Government is a government that has
ratified, accepted, approved, or consented by accession to SOLAS and
thus has agreed to be bound by SOLAS. Accordingly, the Coast Guard will
use LRIT information for those enhanced purposes in order to carry out
its multi-missions of marine safety, security, and stewardship, but
does not believe that any addition to the regulatory text is necessary
for that purpose.
    Finally, MSC 83 decided at least during the initial 2-year
operational period of LRIT, from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010,
there would not be an International Data Center. MSC also decided to
accept the contingent offer of the United States to build and operate
the International Data Exchange on a temporary, interim basis until a
more permanent solution could be decided by MSC. It also maintained the
previously decided implementation schedule for LRIT system operation.
MSC 83/28, Report of the MSC on its 83rd session, page 47.
    We use the terms ``flag State,'' ``port State,'' and ``coastal
State'' throughout this document. Flag State refers to the nation whose
flag the ship is entitled to fly. Port State refers to a nation at
whose internal waters, ports, or roadsteads a ship will call, is
calling, or has called. Coastal State refers to a nation off whose
coast a ship is transiting without calling at its internal waters,
ports, or roadsteads. This explanation of these three terms is provided
to assist the reader in understanding the provisions of this proposed
rule, and is not intended as a comprehensive definition of those terms.
Nor is it to be understood to express a view as to the jurisdictional
competence or authority of the nation in its capacities as a flag
State, port State, or coastal State.

B. Description of the LRIT System

    The LRIT system consists of the shipborne LRIT information
transmitting equipment, Communications Service Providers (CSPs),
Application Service Providers (ASPs), LRIT Data Centers, including any
related Vessel Monitoring System(s) (VMSs), the LRIT Data Distribution
Plan and the International LRIT Data Exchange. Certain aspects of the
performance of the LRIT system are reviewed or audited by the LRIT
Coordinator acting on behalf of the IMO and its Contracting
Governments. For a more detailed description of the LRIT system, please
refer to our NPRM published October 3, 2007, in the Federal Register
(72 FR 56600).

C. Discussion of Rule

    This rule requires certain ships on an international voyage to
transmit position information using LRIT equipment. These requirements
will appear in a new subpart to 33 CFR Part 169: Subpart C--
Transmission of Long Range Identification and Tracking Information.
    As stated in Sec.  169.200, the purpose of the LRIT regulations is
to implement SOLAS V/19-1 and to require certain ships engaged on an
international voyage to transmit ship identification and position
information electronically. The types of ships required to transmit
position reports are identified in Sec.  169.205: Passenger ships,
including high-speed passenger craft, that carry more than 12
passengers; cargo ships, including high speed craft, of 300 gross
tonnage or more; and self-propelled mobile offshore drilling units.
    Under Sec.  169.210, a U.S. flag ship covered by Sec.  169.205 must
transmit position reports at all times while engaged on an
international voyage. The Coast Guard is implementing a SOLAS
requirement for ships covered by Sec.  169.205 to transmit position
reports depending on their relationship to the United States. The
transmissions from a foreign ship covered by Sec.  169.205 may be
received by the U.S. once it has announced its intention to enter a
U.S. port or place under U.S. notice of arrival requirements in 33 CFR
part 160, subpart C. Furthermore, the Coast Guard is entitled to
receive position reports from a foreign ship covered by Sec.  169.205
while navigating within 1,000 nautical miles (nm) of the U.S. baseline,
unless the ship's Flag Administration, under authority of SOLAS V/19-
1.9.1, has directed the ship not to provide these reports. ``Flag
Administration'' means the Government of the State whose flag the ship
is entitled to fly.
    As noted above, many ships subject to this rule will already have
the necessary transmission equipment because of existing radio
communications requirements under SOLAS Chapter IV and applicability
requirements in SOLAS I/3 and IV/1. In addition, our definition of
international voyage in Sec.  169.5 will capture U.S. flag ships
calling on or operating from a foreign port. These ships would be
subject to SOLAS XI-2/6 requirements and are required under 33 CFR
104.297 to have a Ship Security Alert System (SSAS) which, like GMDSS
equipment, should allow the ship to meet LRIT requirements without
purchasing new equipment.
    LRIT implementation dates are based on when a ship is constructed
and where it operates. The earliest LRIT implementation date in Sec.
169.220 would be December 31, 2008, for ships constructed on or after
that date. Ships constructed before December 31, 2008, would be
required to comply with LRIT requirements by the first survey of the
ships radio installation after December 31, 2008, if the ship
operates--
     Within 100 nm of the United States baseline, or
     Within range of an Inmarsat geostationary satellite, or
other Application Service Provider recognized by the Administration,
with which continuous alerting is available.
    An additional 6 months is provided--until the first survey of radio
installation after July 1, 2009--for ships constructed before December
31, 2008, that operate both within and outside the area or range
identified immediately above. However, those ships must meet the
earlier deadline if they operate within that area or range on or before
the first survey of the ships radio installation after July 1, 2009.
    We do not use the term ``sea area'' in our rule. IMO uses that term
in SOLAS V/19-1.4, regarding these installation dates above, as well as
in describing a LRIT exemption. Instead, we have used a ship-within-
range approach represented by set distances because the United States
has not yet defined sea area A1 or A2, as it is permitted to do under
SOLAS IV/1.12 and 1.13 consistent with IMO Resolution A.801(19). For
the purposes of implementing SOLAS V/19-1, we consider the following
distances as

functional equivalents of our as-yet undefined sea areas: within 20 nm
from the U.S. baseline as the functional equivalent for sea area A1;
and within 20 to 100 nm from the U.S. baseline as the functional
equivalent for sea area A2.
    As stated in Sec.  169.215, LRIT equipment must be type-approved
and meet the requirements of IMO Resolutions A.694(17), MSC.210(81),
and MSC.254(83), and IEC standard IEC 60945. Manufacturers seeking type
approval should submit details of their equipment to Commandant, U.S.
Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-521), 2100
Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. Under Sec.  169.225, a
ship must use an Application Service Provider recognized by its
Administration. Under Sec.  169.230, position reports must be
transmitted every 6 hours unless a more frequent interval is requested
remotely by an LRIT Data Center.
    As specified in Sec.  169.240, a ship may switch its LRIT equipment
off when permitted by its Flag Administration or in circumstances
described in SOLAS V/19-1.7, but under Sec.  169.245, the ship's master
must inform the Flag Administration without undue delay if the LRIT
equipment is switched off or fails to operate. The reason for switching
the equipment off, along with the duration of it being off, must be
recorded in the ship's logbook.
    An exemption from LRIT requirements is provided in Sec.  169.235
for warships, certain public vessels, ships operating solely on the
Great Lakes, and ships equipped with an operating automatic
identification system (AIS) if the AIS-equipped ship operates only
within 20 nautical miles of the U.S. baseline.
    In addition to adding subpart C, we have also revised the general
provision in subpart A of 33 CFR part 169 by changing the description
of the purpose of the part, adding LRIT-related definitions in Sec.
169.5, and adding an ``Incorporation by Reference'' section where we
incorporate the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of
Ships, 1969, and IMO resolutions A.694(17), MSC.202(81), MSC.210(81),
and MSC .254(83), and IEC standard IEC 60945, related to SOLAS V/19-1
and LRIT performance standards and functional requirements.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes From Proposed Rule

    We received seven letters commenting on the proposed rule. No
public meeting was requested and none was held.
    The following is a summary of the comments received, and the
changes made to the regulatory text since our proposed rule was
published. We first address comments on ship requirements, then those
that relate to the LRIT System, and finally we address comments related
to Coast Guard resources and enforcement.

A. Ship Requirements

    Two commenters asked how LRIT would interface or overlap with the
Automatic Identification System (AIS). The Coast Guard does not
envision LRIT and AIS interfacing with each other. Although the
position, identification, and time of position information will
essentially be the same in both systems, the method of transmission is
distinct. AIS is a VHF-based system that is limited to line-of-sight
but is able to transmit a broader data content than LRIT. LRIT uses
satellite technology that will enable the Coast Guard to identify and
track ships in a larger geographic area than shore-based AIS. Because
AIS data is open broadcast and is easily obtainable, the Coast Guard
may not need LRIT information while a ship is in port; however, the
process to stop and re-start LRIT transmissions within the LRIT system
is not cost-effective unless the ship will not be transmitting for an
extended period of time. As the majority of ships required to transmit
position reports are expected to be larger cargo and passenger vessels
that typically make short-duration port calls, it may be more cost-
effective to continue LRIT transmissions. Unless ships are exempt from
LRIT through Sec.  169.235(a), there remains a need for SOLAS ships
subject to this rule to report LRIT information.
    One commenter noted that the rule should address vessels that have
a coastwise or an inland route, such as ferries that cross the
international boundary between the U.S. and Canada. The Coast Guard
disagrees. As previously mentioned, Sec.  169.235(a) states ships
fitted with a functional AIS and operating only within 20 nm of the
United States baseline are exempt from LRIT reporting per SOLAS V/19-1.
Furthermore, ships operating exclusively on the Great Lakes are exempt
from LRIT reporting under Sec.  169.235(c). These two exceptions would
cover the majority of ferries that cross the international boundary
between the U.S. and Canada.
    The same commenter asked if a ``sufficient'' report would be
generated when LRIT equipment is switched on, as described in the
rulemaking, on a voyage of less than 6 hours. A vessel on an
international voyage of less than 6 hours that is covered under Sec.
169.205 must keep its LRIT type-approved equipment switched on during
the entire international voyage. If the LRIT equipment has been
switched off, when it is switched on it should send a report if the
last report it sent is more than 6 hours old. If its LRIT equipment is
functioning normally, the vessel would satisfy the LRIT reporting
requirements during its voyage. Also, the vessel's LRIT equipment must
respond if polled, even during a less-than-6-hour international voyage.
    Two commenters perceived this rule required certain operators on
coastal and inland voyages, specifically relating to sea areas A1 or
A2, who have not yet been mandated to purchase Global Maritime Distress
and Safety System (GMDSS) equipment to purchase LRIT equipment. The
Coast Guard disagrees. In the examples given, the Coast Guard would
expect that most of these ships would be operating within sea area A1
once it is declared and as such, would be exempt from LRIT
requirements. SOLAS V/19-1 exempts ships fitted with an AIS and
operated exclusively within sea area A1. For the purposes of this
regulation, we have interpreted sea area A1 to be functionally
equivalent to 20 nm, which is within VHF range of the coast.
    As specified in Sec.  169.235(a), ships operating AIS and that
operate only within 20 nm of the U.S. baseline are exempt from LRIT. As
the U.S. has not yet declared sea areas A1 or A2, that terminology was
specifically avoided in this rule. However, ships that will be required
under GMDSS rules to purchase GMDSS equipment for sea areas A2 if and
when it is declared, operating outside of VHF range of the coast and
beyond 20 nm of the U.S. baseline, will need to carry LRIT compliant
equipment.
    One commenter requested the regulation to address the issue of
permission and allowable times for LRIT equipment to be switched off,
with specific provisions for Mobile Off-shore Drilling Units (MODUs)
that are undergoing repairs in a foreign port or drydocked or in laid-
up status. The Coast Guard has modified the final rule to explain when
LRIT equipment may be switched off. At its 83rd session, the IMO
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) addressed this issue. The MSC agreed
that, for ships undergoing repairs in port or drydock or when laid up,
the master of the ship should be allowed to switch off the LRIT
equipment. Accordingly, MSC issued Resolution MSC.254(83) to reflect
this as a change to the LRIT Performance Standards and Functional
Requirements. We revised Sec.  169.240 in the final rule to include
this

requirement and incorporated Resolution MSC.254(83) by reference.
    One commenter recommended provisions be added to the regulation
that clarify how and when a U.S. vessel, in particular a MODU, is to
provide notice and/or obtain authorization to switch off its LRIT
equipment. In Sec.  169.205(c), the rule clearly states that MODUs are
required to transmit LRIT information when ``underway and not engaged
in drilling operations.'' Furthermore, Sec.  169.240 of this final rule
permits ships to switch off their LRIT equipment in exigent
circumstances as authorized under SOLAS V/19-1.7.2. Prior authorization
to switch off LRIT equipment on a U.S. flag ship on an international
voyage is required in all circumstances not covered by Sec.  169.240.
All ships subject to this rule that have been given authority to switch
off their LRIT equipment must provide a timely notification to the
Coast Guard in accordance with Sec.  169.245.
    One commenter suggested the Coast Guard clarify who is responsible
for notification of failures of data transmissions due to equipment
problems, blocking of satellite signals and changing of satellite ocean
regions, and as a result of Communication Service Providers. The Coast
Guard disagrees that such clarification is necessary in the final rule.
The LRIT system design, specifically the interconnection protocols
between ships and its host Data Center, should be able to identify
where LRIT transmissions are dropped. The LRIT communications protocols
address this issue, and Sec.  169.245 specifically requires a ship
master to report if the ship's LRIT equipment fails to operate.
    One commenter recommended that the regulations state that vessel
owners and operators may share the LRIT position reports with other
parties. The Coast Guard disagrees. Access to LRIT information is only
through the SOLAS Contracting Government. The SOLAS regulation
specifically requires Contracting Governments to recognize and respect
the commercial confidentiality and sensitivity of LRIT information.
Permitting the sharing of LRIT position reports, as suggested by the
commenter, would be contrary to the SOLAS regulation.
    Four commenters expressed concern regarding estimated equipment
upgrade costs and suggested the cost to purchase and train on new GMDSS
equipment could be prohibitive to small passenger vessels. They stated
that the 25 cents per position report estimated cost in the NPRM
incurred by the Coast Guard does not reflect all costs in implementing
LRIT. The Coast Guard disagrees. Except in the limited instances noted
below, the LRIT rulemaking is not imposing a new equipment carriage
requirement. Because of existing GMDSS equipment requirements, most
vessels will be able to utilize existing equipment to meet LRIT
requirements. Although the LRIT architecture is based upon GMDSS
equipment or equivalent LRIT information transmitting equipment, it
does not require full GMDSS capabilities to satisfy LRIT. Ships that
are exempt from the GMDSS equipment carriage requirements should also
be exempt from the LRIT requirements, based on their limited areas of
operation. In what we believe would be the rare event that a ship
operator will need to replace older equipment to satisfy LRIT, that
equipment is available from at least one top-of-the-line manufacturer
for around $3,000. Any ship with older GMDSS equipment that needs
replacement will already have trained GMDSS operators on board. These
operators would be familiar with GMDSS-based LRIT equipment. Therefore,
we did not estimate any additional training costs for this rule.
Furthermore, LRIT operations are envisioned to be automatic and should
not require intervention by shipboard personnel.
    Two commenters stated that problems inherent with the GMDSS system
would not increase Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). The benefit of
having LRIT along with Vessel Traffic Service (VTS), AIS and other
programs that identify and track ships is that it offers layers of
information that can serve to confirm or identify anomalies, thus
improving MDA. Concerns related to GMDSS, in general, are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.
    Two commenters also noted that GMDSS reporting is a time consuming
part of watches and diverts attention from more important tasks. The
Coast Guard disagrees. LRIT is not expected to have any impact on
shipboard personnel in terms of crew workload. LRIT information is sent
automatically and involves no routine human intervention.
    Two commenters recommend an LRIT exemption for VTS monitored
voyages, as well as AIS equipped vessels that should remain in effect
after the U.S. establishes sea areas A1 and A2. The Coast Guard agrees
to some extent, and notes that an exemption is already in place. Ships
covered by Sec.  169.205 that operate solely in VTS areas are generally
within 20 nm of the U.S. baseline and therefore, if fitted with AIS,
would be exempt from LRIT under Sec.  169.235(a). However, AIS-equipped
ships covered by Sec.  169.205 that operate beyond 20 nm of the U.S.
baseline fall outside of the Sec.  169.235(a) exception, and are
therefore required to transmit LRIT position reports while under VTS
monitoring.
    One commenter expressed concern that the LRIT NPRM background
section suggests submittals via the Coast Guard's National Vessel
Movement Center's (NVMC) existing Notice of Arrival (NOA) System in the
absence of an International Data Center (IDC), and also noted NOA
requires manual submission while LRIT will be automatic submissions.
The Coast Guard does not view the IDC as a critical element in the LRIT
system. In the absence of an IDC, ships may be associated with another
National, Regional, or Cooperative Data Center.
    The conditional change referenced in the preamble of the NPRM was
based on IMO implementation dates being pushed further into the future.
That has not occurred. Ships must transmit position reports as required
by this rule. If a ship covered by this rule has submitted a notice of
arrival and the United States is not receiving its LRIT data at
required intervals, the ship will likely be notified by a Captain of
the Port (COTP) that there may be a delay in its regulated access to
the port because required position reports are not being received.
    One commenter was concerned about the use of NOA for position
reports. The Coast Guard acknowledges this concern, and as previously
noted, SOLAS implementation dates have not been pushed further into the
future. Therefore, this final rule is not requiring the use of NOA as a
replacement for LRIT-transmitted position reports. The absence of an
additional requirement in this rule, however, does not prevent a COTP,
under authority reflected in 33 CFR 160.111, from ordering necessary
information from a specific ship covered by this rule and headed for a
U.S. port or place if the United States is not receiving LRIT data from
that ship.

B. LRIT System

    One commenter requested the regulation specifically state that
satellite position reports will be paid by the Coast Guard. The Coast
Guard does not believe this is necessary, given the rule's
incorporation by reference of IMO Resolution MSC.202(81), which
contains the provision that Contracting Governments will not impose any
charges on ships in relation to the LRIT tracking information they may
seek to receive. SOLAS V/19-1.11.1.
    One commenter asked how the LRIT system would work without an IDC.
MSC 83 decided not to establish an IDC. The Coast Guard has determined
that in

the absence of an IDC, all SOLAS Contracting Governments will need to
associate their ships with a National, Regional, or Cooperative Data
Center.
    One commenter suggested the Coast Guard address how it will handle
the issue of flag States that do not have an operational data center
and have decided not to make use of the U.S. system. The Coast Guard
recognizes that the international LRIT system is dependent on each
SOLAS Contracting Government establishing an LRIT data center and
ensuring that position reports from its ships entitled to fly its Flag
may be accessed by other Data Centers through the International LRIT
Data Exchange. This rule, however, is directed at ships, not at other
governments. As noted above, if the United States does not receive LRIT
data from a ship covered by this rule that is headed to a U.S. port or
place, then a COTP could exercise full regulatory authority over
individual ships in order to protect the safety and security of his or
her port.
    One commenter expressed concern about how the IDE and LRIT system
would function after January 1, 2010. The agreement reached at MSC 83
was for the U.S. to operate the IDE on a temporary interim basis until
January 2010. In the interim, MSC must decide on an alternative
arrangement, i.e., another Administration or commercial entity to
build, host, operate, and maintain the IDE. If MSC is unable to decide
on such an alternative, the U.S. will need to determine if it can
continue its temporary operation of the IDE.
    One commenter requested that Sec.  169.210 specify transmission of
reports shall continue until such time as the vessel departs the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) on an
outbound international voyage. The Coast Guard disagrees. The SOLAS
regulation is silent on the issue of a ship departing a port, and the
commenter also noted the rule specifies when a vessel must begin
transmitting but does not indicate when the transmissions may cease.
However, the SOLAS regulation and performance standards and functional
requirements incorporated by reference contemplate LRIT transmissions
every six (6) hours and when polled. This requirement is not dependent
on whether the ship is entering or departing port. Once a ship has left
port, a Contracting Government is entitled to track the ship within
1,000 nm of its coast, unless specifically denied by the ship's Flag
Administration, or until that ship has entered the internal waters of
another Contracting Government.
    The same commenter requested the Coast Guard add the definitions of
EEZ and OCS to Sec.  169.5. The Coast Guard disagrees. Neither the term
EEZ nor OCS is contained in that SOLAS regulation, nor do they have any
bearing on that regulation or this rulemaking. This rule implements
SOLAS V/19-<IP_ADDRESS>, which entitles a Contracting Government to receive
position reports from foreign vessels operating within 1,000 nm of its
coast, irrespective of its location relative to the EEZ or OCS.
Therefore, we see no need to define those terms in this rule.
    One commenter stated that Sec.  169.210 should clarify the rule to
include vessels that intend to work on the U.S. OCS but not enter the
territorial sea, vessels that intend to lighter cargoes offshore, or
other ``hovering vessels''. The Coast Guard disagrees that such
clarification is necessary in the rule. The Coast Guard believes these
ships are considered to be on an international voyage. As stated in
Sec.  169.205 and reflected in the heading of Sec.  169.210, this final
rule applies to ships engaged on an international voyage. If these OCS
locations are within 1,000 nm of the U.S. baseline, then Sec.
169.210(c) makes it clear that the Coast Guard is entitled to receive
position reports based on the ship's location relative to U.S. coast
(i.e., coastal State relationship). Further, Sec.  169.210(b) makes it
clear that United States has a port State relationship to a ship that
has submitted a NOA under 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, and therefore the
Coast Guard has authority to require position reports. This rule does
not change those NOA requirements in part 160 that are based on a ship
going to a U.S. ``port or place of destination.'' Under either
relationship, foreign flag ships engaged on an international voyage,
such as those identified by the commenter, would be required to
transmit position reports, as would a U.S. flag ship on an
international voyage.
    One commenter requested that the regulation address the ``non-
mandatory'' requirement imposed by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District, which mandates installation of ``locating devices'' on all
MODUs, both self propelled and non-self propelled, while operating in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and suggested LRIT replace that requirement.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The LRIT system and these regulations, and
the Eighth District voluntary system to which this comment refers, are
designed to serve two distinct and different capabilities. Furthermore,
these regulations pertain only to self-propelled MODUs and the Eight
District voluntary program pertains to all MODUs. Therefore, the need
for the Eighth District voluntary program will not be eliminated by the
LRIT system or the LRIT information that results.
    The Eighth Coast Guard District voluntary requirement relates to
ships and facilities subject to 33 CFR chapter I subchapter N (Outer
Continental Shelf Activities). The reporting requirements facilitate
the Coast Guard's ability to obtain limited access to MODU position
information once a storm has passed through the MODU area of operation.
The position reporting requirement provides an essential part of the
Eighth District's ability to prepare for, and respond to, hurricanes
and other natural disasters. The position reporting requirement is
intended to maximize severe weather response preparation and Maritime
Domain Awareness of our OCS in order to ensure a successful response
effort. This initiative utilizes transponder equipment and is
considered an industry ``best practice.'' The technology and equipment
provides real time MODU location tracking capability. It is vital to
the Coast Guard's and the drilling industry's shared success to limit
environmental and property damage caused by MODU loss of station-
keeping ability (dragging anchors across and damaging undersea
pipelines on the seabed as a result of the hurricane being a prime
example).
    In addition, real time access to this position information is
vitally important to mutual initial response efforts (e.g., having the
last known position of a MODU if it sank). The Eighth District
initiative allows access to such information from all types of MODU's
and offshore facilities, whereas, the LRIT regulations are limited to
self-propelled MODU's. Furthermore, Sec.  169.205(c) only requires
position reports from MODU's that are actually underway on an
international voyage. Because of the foregoing dissimilarities between
the Eighth District voluntary program and the LRIT regulation, the
Coast Guard does not agree that LRIT can be an effective substitute for
the Eighth District voluntary program.
    One commenter stated that the LRIT exemption for vessels operating
within 20 nm of land with properly operating AIS is somewhat confusing
and suggested it may be clearer to state for vessels that may otherwise
be required to operate an LRIT system, the operation of such a system
is not required for vessels when operating within 20 nm of the baseline
or within the internal waters of the U.S. The Coast Guard disagrees.
The AIS exemption under Sec.  169.235(a) applies only to ships
certified for operation within 20 nm of the coast, and is derived from
the SOLAS regulation that exempts ships

operating solely in sea area A1. Therefore, the AIS exemption does not
apply when a ship enters from seaward the area within 20 nm of the
coast, or otherwise operates beyond 20 nm from the coast.
    One commenter recommended the Coast Guard recognize the added MDA
value already provided by the Automated Secure Vessel Tracking System
to vessels that voluntarily provide more frequent polling by allowing
partial relief from the Notice of Arrival updating requirements. The
Coast Guard disagrees. Specifically identifying a system operated by a
commercial entity outside of the LRIT paradigm is inappropriate when it
does not meet the LRIT performance standards and functional
requirements. Additionally, data exchanges with the NOA system are
outside the scope of this rulemaking. We are not changing NOA
requirements in this rulemaking since LRIT does not satisfy NOA update
report requirements.

C. Coast Guard Resources and Enforcement

    One commenter noted the regulation made no reference to penalties
imposed upon vessels that are required to transmit LRIT data but fail
to do so, and also asked if the Coast Guard planned to intercept such
vessels. This regulation is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
70115 and 33 U.S.C. 1231; these statutes provide for civil and criminal
penalties for violation of the statute or regulations promulgated under
them by persons subject to the statute and regulation. See 46 U.S.C.
70119 (civil penalty of $25,000 per day of violation) and 70120 (in rem
liability of the vessel for the civil penalty and certain costs), and
33 U.S.C. 1232 (civil penalty of $25,000 per day, indexed for inflation
and currently $32,500 per day, liable in rem against the ship; knowing
and willful violations constitute a class D felony; and denial of
entry).
    To ensure effective compliance, the Coast Guard will develop and
implement a compliance strategy that includes enforcement in
appropriate cases. As with all new requirements, this compliance
strategy will include elements of education of the regulated public
supplemented by use of our civil penalty authority and, in the event of
a knowing and willful violation, we will consider referring the matter
to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
    The most important goal of this regulation is to obtain compliance
so that the Coast Guard achieves maritime domain awareness and is able
to detect anomalies and take measures to satisfy its mission to protect
the safety and security of our ports and waterways. For example, if a
ship that is arriving at a U.S. port has submitted an advance notice of
arrival but its LRIT information has not been received, the COTP will
be notified. Taking this and other information into account, the COTP
may exercise various enforcement options including, when and if
necessary, holding the ship offshore in U.S. territorial seas until it
can be boarded and checked for security concerns.
    One commenter expressed concern about the impact of a large number
of LRIT transmissions on the Coast Guard's staffing capacity and asked
if the cost-benefit analysis included increased recruitment and
staffing needs. The Coast Guard does not anticipate a need for an
increase in Coast Guard staffing as a result of this rulemaking. The
LRIT information collection and dissemination within the Coast Guard
will be automated as much as possible. There are already USCG systems
in place for displaying this type of information and we are planning to
incorporate the LRIT information into those systems.
    One commenter asked several questions concerning ship-by-ship
inspections of LRIT equipment. The first question asked whether
inspections would require more specialized training of inspectors and
whether additional inspectors would be required. The Coast Guard does
not envision the need for more specialization in order to conduct
inspections of ships carrying LRIT equipment. In many cases, this
equipment will be the same as currently installed on SOLAS ships to
satisfy GMDSS requirements, which will implement some degree of remote
testing capability. We do not anticipate a need to increase the number
of inspectors.
    The commenter's next question asked what the inspection would
entail. The Coast Guard expects the inspection of LRIT equipment to
follow a similar inspection as currently required for GMDSS equipment.
    The commenter's final question pertained to the length of time
afforded to operators to fix problems with LRIT equipment. Coast Guard
inspectors will work with vessel operators to determine a reasonable
length of time needed to correct discrepancies. In making this
determination, Coast Guard inspectors typically consider the details of
the deficiency found, the ability and/or availability of personnel to
affect corrective action, along with the availability of parts. As the
LRIT system comes online and as new ships are entered into the system,
the Coast Guard envisions utilizing a contract with a third party to
verify the capability of shipboard LRIT equipment and its ability to
meet LRIT performance standards.

D. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    This is a summary of changes from the proposed rule. We revised
Sec. Sec.  169.15, 169.215 and 169.240 to reflect the incorporation by
reference of IMO Resolution MSC.254(83) regarding the master of a ship
being allowed to switch off the ship's LRIT equipment when the ship is
undergoing repairs in port or drydock or when the ship is laid up.
    In Sec.  169.5, our definition of ``gross tonnage'' remains the
same as proposed in the NPRM, with the exception that at the end we
note that we have incorporated the International Convention on Tonnage
Measurement of Ships, 1969, by reference. We also referenced this
tonnage convention in Sec.  169.15, which lists materials incorporated
by reference.
    Finally, we revised the informational note in Sec.  169.245 to
identify the U.S. Coast Guard--and not a unit of the Coast Guard--as
the Flag Administration whom U.S. ship masters notify when LRIT
equipment is switched off, fails to operate, or regarding any other
LRIT-related matters. All LRIT notifications for the U.S. Flag
Administration, in addition to requests or questions about LRIT, should
be communicated to the U.S. Coast Guard by e-mail addressed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If an additional means of communicating with the Coast
Guard is established (e.g., phone number), we will revise the
informational note in Sec.  169.245 to reflect this change.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in
Sec. Sec.  169.5, 169.215 and 169.240 for incorporation by reference
under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are
available from the sources listed in Sec.  169.15.

VI. Regulatory Evaluation

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

A. Executive Order 12866

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not

require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    A final Regulatory Evaluation follows:
    The Maritime Transportation Security Act, authorized the Coast
Guard under the Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
to implement the use of LRIT for U.S. and foreign flag ships off the
U.S. coastlines that are equipped with GMDSS, i.e., INMARSAT-C, or
equivalent satellite technology. The carriage requirement for this
equipment for foreign flag vessels is contained in the SOLAS
Convention, 1974, as amended, and in 47 CFR part 80 for U.S. flag
vessels. When implemented, LRIT, as an amendment to SOLAS, will enhance
overall maritime domain awareness by providing the United States, as a
Contracting Government to SOLAS, with the identities and current
location information of vessels that are within 1,000 nm of the U.S.
baseline, which includes vessels that may be in innocent passage or on
the high seas. As an ancillary benefit, LRIT may also assist the Coast
Guard in the area of search and rescue by reducing the response time to
the location of vessels in distress.
    This rule will affect U.S. and foreign flag SOLAS vessels that
transit internationally. LRIT will affect vessels engaged on
international voyages and would include passenger vessels carrying more
than 12 passengers including high-speed craft, cargo ships 300 gross
tonnage or more including high-speed craft, and self-propelled mobile
offshore drilling units.
    The equipment necessary to transmit LRIT data is not a new carriage
requirement under this rule. With few exceptions, ships required to
transmit LRIT information will not need to purchase new LRIT equipment.
The affected U.S. flag vessel population is already required to carry
the requisite GMDSS equipment onboard, as defined in 47 CFR part 80.
This equipment should be operable and capable of transmitting a
vessel's position automatically that meets the performance standards in
IMO Resolutions MSC.210(81) and MSC.254(83) and that can transmit LRIT
data as detailed in the ``Description of the LRIT System,'' Section
III.B, above.
    The Coast Guard also envisioned LRIT to be backward compatible with
existing equipment onboard vessels and we do not have any data to
suggest otherwise. We estimate that approximately 15 percent of U.S.
flag vessels (about 70 out of the estimated 450) may need some type of
equipment enhancement. Of that 15 percent, we estimate that two-thirds
(about 47 of the 450 vessels) may need software or firmware upgrades in
order to satisfy the LRIT requirement. There may be little to no cost
for this activity as at least one manufacturer offers the software
upgrades for free. Furthermore, we estimate that the remaining one-
third (about 23 out of the 450 vessels) may need equipment upgrades
(such as new GMDSS satellite communications equipment for example) in
order to satisfy the LRIT requirement and may incur minimal costs as a
result of this rule. We estimate the cost for a new GMDSS or equivalent
satellite unit for LRIT to be around $3,000. If new units were needed
on only 23 U.S. flag vessels, then the equipment cost incurred by
industry would be less than $70,000 to fulfill the LRIT requirement.
    The Coast Guard anticipates that crews will not have to engage in
activities outside of their normal duties in order to comply with the
LRIT requirement. The only requirement for each vessel is to have the
GMDSS activated and transmitting LRIT information when the vessel is
underway so its position can be reported automatically.
    Contracting Governments that are entitled to request and receive
the LRIT information will be required to pay for this service. The
United States, as a Contracting Government, will incur the cost for
vessels that transit within 1,000 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline
that transmit their position signals to a data center that collects the
information.
    Based on information from the Coast Guard's Intelligence
Coordination Center (ICC) and Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) data, we estimate that 3,000 vessels transit within
1,000 nautical miles of the U.S. coastlines on any given day and would
be affected by this rule. To obtain the U.S. flag population of
vessels, we utilized the Coast Guard's MISLE database and searched
vessels that are SOLAS-certificated and that have an ``ocean'' route
designation. Of the approximately 3,000 vessels that ICC estimated,
approximately 450 are U.S. flag vessels and the remaining balance is
foreign flag vessels that transit internationally.
    The LRIT equipment will require a one-time activation and will
remain on unless switched off as permitted by the vessel's Flag
Administration, in circumstances detailed in SOLAS V/19-1.7, or in
paragraph 4.4.1, of resolution MSC.210(81), as amended by resolution
MSC.254(83). Once the crew activates the onboard equipment, information
will be transmitted automatically from the vessel to an LRIT Data
Center. More information on the LRIT System can be found in the
``Description of the LRIT System,'' Section III.C, of the NPRM.
    Based on the SOLAS LRIT amendments, one transmission will be made
every six hours, or four times a day, 365 days a year. A covered U.S.
flag ship on international voyages is required to make transmissions in
accordance with this schedule, including during routine port calls,
until the international voyage terminates at a U.S. port. Likewise, a
covered foreign flag ship that calls on a U.S. port must make
transmissions in accordance with this schedule, also while in U.S.
port, and the Coast Guard is entitled to continue to receive position
reports until the ship has proceeded beyond 1,000 nm of the U.S.
baseline or enters the territorial seas of another Contracting
Government. Based on the foregoing, we estimate that foreign flag
vessels would make approximately 10,200 transmissions per day (2,550
vessels x 4 transmissions per day) for a total of 3,723,000
transmissions per year (2,550 vessels x 4 transmissions per day x 365
days per year). We estimate that U.S. flag vessels would make
approximately 1,800 transmissions per day (450 vessels x 4
transmissions per day) for a total of 657,000 transmissions per year
(450 vessels x 4 transmissions per day x 365 days per year). The Coast
Guard's Office of Navigation Systems estimates that each transmission
would cost the U.S. Government $0.25, or even less if transmissions are
purchased in bulk.
    We estimate that the U.S. Government will incur data transmission
costs of approximately $930,750 (3,723,000 transmissions x $0.25 per
transmission) annually from foreign flag vessels and $164,250 (657,000
transmissions x $0.25 per transmission) annually from U.S. vessels for
a total annual cost of $1,095,000.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    We have reviewed this rule for potential economic impacts on small
entities. Since the U.S. Government will incur costs associated with
the transmission of information from a

vessel to the United States and we estimate that any equipment upgrade
cost that may be incurred by a ship would be no more than $3,000 and
that less than 23 ships would require such upgrades, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If you think
that this rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning these
provisions or options for compliance, please consult with the Coast
Guard personnel listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this rule. Note, the Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule will call for a collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow.
    Title: Enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness via Electronic
Transmission of Vessel Transit Data.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-new.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Certain vessels will
periodically report identity and position data electronically.
    Need for Information: LRIT will enhance security by providing the
United States with the identities and current location of vessels off
its coast. The United States will then have sufficient time to evaluate
the security risk posed by a vessel and then respond, if necessary, to
reduce the risk of a possible security threat. In addition, there will
also be an immediate safety benefit by enhancing the information
available to SAR services. Accurate information on the location of a
vessel in distress as well as vessels in the area that could lend
assistance will save valuable response time to affect a timely rescue.
    Proposed Use of Information: Provide the United States with
identity and current location data for a vessel off its coast and
assess whether there is a security risk or to assist rescue
coordination centers response to a vessel in distress.
    Description of the Respondents: Owners/operators of U.S. flag ships
that trade internationally.
    Number of Respondents: Approximately 450 vessels.
    Frequency of Response: A one-time GMDSS LRIT system initialization
for each vessel, subsequent annual system check, and occasional logbook
entries when a ship master switches off the LRIT equipment or the LRIT
equipment fails to operate.
    Burden of Response: 20 minutes per vessel.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this rule to OMB for its review
of the collection of information. OMB has not yet completed its review
of this collection. Therefore, Sec. Sec.  169.215, 169.230 and 169.245
in this rule may not be enforced until this collection is approved by
OMB. We will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision
to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation,
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as
the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress
intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases
of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120
S.Ct. 1135, March 6, 2000.
    The requirements in this rule that certain ships on international
voyages have and operate LRIT equipment that meets international
performance standards fall into the categories of equipping ships and
operating that equipment. Because the States may not regulate within
these categories, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an
issue.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule uses the following technical standards:
     IEC 60945, Fourth edition 2002-08, Maritime navigation and
radiocommunication equipment and systems--General requirements--Methods
of testing and required test results.
     IMO Resolution MSC.202(81), adopted on May 19, 2006,
Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea, 1974, as Amended.
     IMO Resolution MSC.210(81), adopted May 19, 2006,
Performance Standards and Functional Requirements for the Long-Range
Identification and Tracking of Ships.
     IMO Resolution MSC.254(83), adopted October 12, 2007,
Adoption of Amendments to the Performance Standards and Functional
Requirements for the Long-Range Identification and Tracking of Ships.
     IMO Resolution A.694(17), adopted November 6, 1991,
General Requirements for Shipborne Radio Equipment Forming Part of the
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and for Electronic
Navigational Aids.
     International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships,
1969.

The sections that reference these standards and the locations where
these standards are available are listed in 33 CFR 169.15.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of the Instruction. This rule concerns
vessel equipment requirements that will contribute to a higher level of
marine safety and maritime domain awareness for U.S. port and
waterways. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 169

    Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference,
Marine mammals, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Radio, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Water pollution control.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 169 as follows:

PART 169--SHIP REPORTING SYSTEMS

0
1. The authority citation is revised to read:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1230(d), 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70115, Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  169.1  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  169.1 as follows:
0
a. In the section heading, remove the word ``subpart'' and add, in its
place, the word ``part''; and
0
b. In the last sentence, add the words ``maritime security and domain
awareness,'' immediately after ``navigation safety,''.
0
3. In Sec.  169.5, revise the section heading; add introductory text
and add, in alphabetical order, the definitions of the terms
``Administration'', ``Cargo ship'', ``Flag Administration'', ``Gross
tonnage'', ``High speed craft'', ``High speed passenger craft'',
``International voyage'', ``Long range identification and tracking
(LRIT) information or position report'', ``LRIT Data Center'', ``Mobile
offshore drilling unit'', ``Passenger ship'', and ``United States'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  169.5  How are terms used in this part defined?

    As used in this part--
    Administration means the Government of the State whose flag the
ship is entitled to fly.
    Cargo ship means any ship which is not a passenger ship.
    Flag Administration means the Government of a State whose flag the
ship is entitled to fly.
    Gross tonnage means tonnage as defined under the International
Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (Incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  169.15).
* * * * *
    High speed craft means a craft that is operable on or above the
water and is capable of a maximum speed equal to or exceeding
V=3.7xdispl \.1667\, where ``V'' is the maximum speed and ``displ'' is
the vessel displacement corresponding to the design waterline in cubic
meters.
    High speed passenger craft means a high speed craft carrying more
than 12 passengers.
    International voyage means a voyage from a country to which the
present International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS),
1974 applies to a port outside such country, or conversely. For U.S.
ships, such voyages will be considered to originate at a port in the
United States, regardless of when the voyage actually began. Such
voyages for U.S. ships will continue until the ship returns to the
United States from its last foreign port.
    Long range identification and tracking (LRIT) information or
position report means a report containing the following information:
    (1) The identity of the ship;
    (2) The position of the ship (latitude and longitude); and
    (3) The date and time of the position provided.
    LRIT Data Center means a center established by a SOLAS Contracting
Government or a group of Contracting

Governments, or in the case of the International Data Center, by IMO,
to request, receive, process, and archive LRIT information. An LRIT
Data Center may be National, Regional, Co-operative or International.
* * * * *
    Mobile offshore drilling unit means a self-propelled vessel capable
of engaging in drilling operations for the exploration or exploitation
of subsea resources.
    Passenger ship means a ship that carries more than 12 passengers.
* * * * *
    United States means the States of the United States, the District
of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the
United States.
0
4. In subpart A, add Sec.  169.15 to read as follows:

Sec.  169.15  Incorporation by reference: Where can I get a copy of the
publications mentioned in this part?

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of
change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to
the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available for inspection
at the Coast Guard, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-54132), 2100
Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, and is available from
the sources indicated in this section.
    (b) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Bureau Central
de la Commission Electrotechnique Internationale, 3 rue de
Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
    (1) IEC 60945, Fourth edition 2002-08, Maritime navigation and
radiocommunication equipment and systems--General requirements--Methods
of testing and required test results, incorporation by reference
approved for Sec.  169.215.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4 Albert Embankment,
London SE1 7SR, U.K.
    (1) IMO Resolution MSC.202(81), adopted on May 19, 2006, Adoption
of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea, 1974, as Amended, incorporation by reference approved for Sec.
169.240.
    (2) IMO Resolution MSC.210(81), adopted on May 19, 2006,
Performance Standards and Functional Requirements for the Long-Range
Identification and Tracking of Ships, incorporation by reference
approved for Sec. Sec.  169.215 and 169.240.
    (3) IMO Resolution MSC.254(83), adopted on October 12, 2007,
Adoption of Amendments to the Performance Standards and Functional
Requirements for the Long-Range Identification and Tracking of Ships,
incorporation by reference approved for Sec. Sec.  169.215 and 169.240.
    (4) IMO Resolution A.694(17), adopted on November 6, 1991, General
Requirements for Shipborne Radio Equipment Forming Part of the Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and for Electronic
Navigational Aids, incorporation by reference approved for Sec.
165.215.
    (5) International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969,
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  169.5.
0
5. Add subpart C, consisting of Sec. Sec.  169.200 through 169.245, to
read as follows:

Subpart C--Transmission of Long Range Identification and Tracking
Information

Sec.
169.200 What is the purpose of this subpart?
169.205 What types of ships are required to transmit LRIT
information (position reports)?
169.210 Where during its international voyage must a ship transmit
position reports?
169.215 How must a ship transmit position reports?
169.220 When must a ship be fitted with LRIT equipment?
169.225 Which Application Service Providers may a ship use?
169.230 How often must a ship transmit position reports?
169.235 What exemptions are there from reporting?
169.240 When may LRIT equipment be switched off?
169.245 What must a ship master do if LRIT equipment is switched off
or fails to operate?

Subpart C--Transmission of Long Range Identification and Tracking
Information

Sec.  169.200  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart implements Regulation 19-1 of SOLAS Chapter V (SOLAS
V/19-1) and requires certain ships engaged on an international voyage
to transmit vessel identification and position information
electronically. This requirement enables the Coast Guard to obtain long
range identification and tracking (LRIT) information and thus heightens
our overall maritime domain awareness, enhances our search and rescue
operations, and increases our ability to detect anomalies and deter
transportation security incidents.

Sec.  169.205  What types of ships are required to transmit LRIT
information (position reports)?

    The following ships, while engaged on an international voyage, are
required to transmit position reports:
    (a) A passenger ship, including high speed passenger craft.
    (b) A cargo ship, including high speed craft, of 300 gross tonnage
or more.
    (c) A mobile offshore drilling unit while underway and not engaged
in drilling operations.

Sec.  169.210  Where during its international voyage must a ship
transmit position reports?

    The requirements for the transmission of position reports, imposed
by the United States, vary depending on the relationship of the United
States to a ship identified in Sec.  169.205.
    (a) Flag State relationship. A U.S. flag ship engaged on an
international voyage must transmit position reports wherever they are
located.
    (b) Port State relationship. A foreign flag ship engaged on an
international voyage must transmit position reports after the ship has
announced its intention to enter a U.S. port or place under
requirements in 33 CFR part 160, subpart C.
    (c) Coastal State relationship. A foreign flag ship engaged on an
international voyage must transmit position reports when the ship is
within 1,000 nautical miles of the baseline of the United States,
unless their Flag Administration, under authority of SOLAS V/19-1.9.1,
has directed them not to do so.

Sec.  169.215  How must a ship transmit position reports?

    A ship must transmit position reports using Long Range
Identification and Tracking (LRIT) equipment that has been type-
approved by their Administration. To be type-approved by the Coast
Guard, LRIT equipment must meet the requirements of IMO Resolutions
A.694(17), MSC.210(81), and MSC.254(83), and IEC standard IEC 60945
(Incorporated by reference, see Sec.  169.15).

Sec.  169.220  When must a ship be fitted with LRIT equipment?

    A ship identified in Sec.  169.205 must be equipped with LRIT
equipment--
    (a) Before getting underway, if the ship is constructed on or after
December 31, 2008.
    (b) By the first survey of the radio installation after December
31, 2008, if the ship is--
    (1) Constructed before December 31, 2008, and
    (2) Operates within--
    (i) One hundred (100) nautical miles of the United States baseline,
or
    (ii) Range of an Inmarsat geostationary satellite, or other
Application Service Provider recognized by the Administration, with
which continuous alerting is available.
    (c) By the first survey of the radio installation after July 1,
2009, if the ship is--
    (1) Constructed before December 31, 2008, and
    (2) Operates within the area or range specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section as well as outside the range of an Inmarsat
geostationary satellite with which continuous alerting is available.
While operating in the area or range specified in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, however, a ship must install LRIT equipment by the first
survey of the radio installation after December 31, 2008.

Sec.  169.225  Which Application Service Providers may a ship use?

    A ship may use an Application Service Provider (ASP) recognized by
its Administration. Some Communication Service Providers may also serve
as an ASP.

Sec.  169.230  How often must a ship transmit position reports?

    A ship's LRIT equipment must transmit position reports at 6-hour
intervals unless a more frequent interval is requested remotely by an
LRIT Data Center.

Sec.  169.235  What exemptions are there from reporting?

    A ship is exempt from this subpart if it is--
    (a) Fitted with an operating automatic identification system (AIS),
under 33 CFR 164.46, and operates only within 20 nautical miles of the
United States baseline,
    (b) A warship, naval auxiliaries or other ship owned or operated by
a SOLAS Contracting Government and used only on Government non-
commercial service, or
    (c) A ship solely navigating the Great Lakes of North America and
their connecting and tributary waters as far east as the lower exit of
the St. Lambert Lock at Montreal in the Province of Quebec, Canada.

Sec.  169.240  When may LRIT equipment be switched off?

    A ship engaged on an international voyage may switch off its LRIT
equipment only when it is permitted by its Flag Administration, in
circumstances detailed in SOLAS V/19-1.7, or in paragraph 4.4.1, of
resolution MSC.210(81), as amended by resolution MSC.254(83)
(Incorporated by reference, see Sec.  169.15).

Sec.  169.245  What must a ship master do if LRIT equipment is switched
off or fails to operate?

    (a) If a ship's LRIT equipment is switched off or fails to operate,
the ship's master must inform his or her Flag Administration without
undue delay.
    (b) The master must also make an entry in the ship's logbook that
states--
    (1) His or her reason for switching the LRIT equipment off, or an
entry that the equipment has failed to operate, and
    (2) The period during which the LRIT equipment was switched off or
non-operational.

    Note to Sec.  169.245: For U.S. vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard
serves as the Flag Administration for purposes of this section. All
LRIT notifications for the U.S. Flag Administration, in addition to
requests or questions about LRIT, should be communicated to the U.S.
Coast Guard by e-mail addressed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: April 22, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E8-9182 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9822-9823]
[DOCID:fr05mr07-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55340; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Clarifying the
Operative Date of Rules Relating to Regulation NMS

February 23, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 22, 2007, the NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NYSE Arca.
The Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NYSE Arca proposes to clarify the operative date of the rule
changes made in connection with Regulation NMS,\5\ from February 4,
2007 to March 5, 2007.\6\ There is no new rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54549 (September 29,
2006), 71 FR 59179 (October 6, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-59).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55160 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4202 (January 30, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NYSE Arca has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change clarifies the operative date of the rule
changes made in connection with Regulation NMS \7\ from February 4,
2007 to March 5, 2007. This clarification stems in part from the
Commission's extension of the Trading Phase Date of Regulation NMS to
March 5, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
    \8\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE Arca believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\13\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would permit the Exchange rules to immediately reflect the new Trading
Phase Date, March 5, 2007. For this reason, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. NYSE Arca has satisfied the five-day pre-filing
notice requirement.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-18. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE Arca. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-18 and should be submitted on or before
March 26, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3740 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I went from smoking a pack of cigarettes in 2 days to completely stopping with the help of vaping. My lungs have been strengthened, I don't smell like smoke, and I am no longer killing myself slowly with lung cancer. Vaping has helped me quit a habit that would eventually lead to long term health problems, and the last thing I want is for this to be taken over by tobacco companies. I've smoked tobacco for a year, and it is in no way, shape or form comparable to vaping. To classify vaping as a tobacco product would be criminal, and would destroy and industry that is growing in leaps and bounds. Vaping is important to me and I won't see it destroyed without having my say.

A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44254-44255] [FR Doc No: 2011-18167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1327; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASW-19]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Denton, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace for Denton, TX, to

accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures at Denton Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action

to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)

operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the

Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under

1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and

publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,

Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-

7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 18, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice

of proposed rulemaking to amend Class D airspace for Denton, TX,

creating additional controlled airspace at Denton Municipal Airport (76

FR 28684) Docket No. FAA-2010-1327. Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on

the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace

designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated

August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace

designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in

the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

Part 71 by creating additional Class D airspace for new standard

instrument approach procedures at Denton Municipal Airport, Denton, TX.

This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR

operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of Denton

Municipal Airport are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's

aeronautical database. With the exception of this change, this action

is the same as that published in the NPRM.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an

established body of technical regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.

Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory

action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''

under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,

1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter

that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is

certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is

found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes

the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation

Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in

subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the

FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of

airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient

use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority

as it amends controlled airspace for Denton Municipal Airport, Denton,

TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as

follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,

24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0

2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal

Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and

Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,

2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ASW TX D Denton, TX [Amended]

Denton Municipal Airport, TX

    (Lat. 33[deg]12'08'' N., long. 97[deg]11'53'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not

including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Denton Municipal

Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 001[deg] bearing from

the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 4.2 miles north of

the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 181[deg] bearing

from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 4.2 miles south

of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the

specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to

Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously

published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 13, 2011.

Walter L. Tweedy,

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.

[FR Doc. 2011-18167 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P