Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3899 

(a) The CVC or LTDA type used in the 

transaction; 

(b) The transaction amount; 

(c) The assessed transaction value (in 

U.S. dollars); 

(d) The date and time of the 

transaction; 

(e) The transaction hash; 

(f) CVC or LTDA addresses involved 

in the transaction, and if they are hosted 

or unhosted; 

(g) The name and physical address of 

each counterparty to the transaction of 

the financial institution’s customer; and 

(h) Other information readily 

available to the bank or MSB, which 

aids in identifying the specific reported 

transaction(s), the means by which it 

was conducted, and the parties 

involved. 

A final rule implementing these 

proposed reporting requirements would 

be effective 30 days after its publication, 

except that the requirement to report 

counterparty information (if adopted) 

would not take effect for 60 days given 

the additional complexity it may 

present. 

FinCEN also continues to invite 

comment on the portion of the 

December Notice related to proposed 

independent recordkeeping obligations 

for transactions greater than $3,000. Any 

final rule implementing the 

recordkeeping requirements would be 

effective 60 days after its publication. 

Comments on the December Notice: 

FinCEN reviewed and considered 7,506 

comments submitted in response to the 

December Notice prior to January 8, 

2021. Commenters included financial 

institutions and companies that provide 

services related to CVC or LTDA, 

academics, trade organizations, 

cryptocurrency development groups, 

non-profit organizations, customers and 

employees of companies that provide 

services related to CVC or LTDA, and 

cryptocurrency owners and other 

individuals (both domestic and foreign), 

as well as anonymous sources. 

Commenters addressed a range of 

considerations, including implications 

for technological development and other 

forms of innovation, the economics of 

the digital asset industry, U.S. economic 

competitiveness, compliance matters, 

data security and privacy, utility to law 

enforcement, and procedural aspects of 

the December Notice (including the 

length of the comment period). 

Determination to Reopen the Public 

Comment Period: FinCEN appreciates 

the substantial response from 

commenters during the original 

comment period, and FinCEN welcomes 

further comment in the reopened 

comment periods. With respect to the 

additional 15 days for comments on the 

proposed reporting requirements, 

FinCEN notes that these proposed 

requirements are essentially equivalent 

to the existing CTR reporting 

requirements that apply to transactions 

in currency. The proposed rule is a vital 

loophole-closing measure to prevent 

illicit transactions using CVC and 

LTDA, including the financing of 

terrorism, in light of the fact that such 

transactions would otherwise be subject 

to familiar and long-established 

reporting requirements if they were in 

cash. The proposal is also consistent 

with Congress’s recent expansion of the 

definition of ‘‘monetary instrument’’ in 

the BSA, which reflects the expectation 

that FinCEN would bring CVC and 

LTDA within monetary instrument 

reporting requirements. FinCEN notes 

that a large number of commenters 

agreed it is fully appropriate for FinCEN 

to finalize a rule providing similar 

regulatory treatment to similar activity. 

FinCEN welcomes comments during 

this reopened comment period on 

FinCEN’s application of new statutory 

authority pursuant to the BSA 

amendments made by the AML Act of 

2020. In addition, several commenters 

noted the need for additional 

information on the nature of the reports 

required by the proposal in order to 

provide an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits of the proposed rule. As 

indicated in the supplementary 

information, FinCEN intends to use a 

form similar to the existing CTR form 

and requests further comment in light of 

this additional information. 

With respect to the additional 45 days 

for comments on the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements and the 

proposed requirement to report 

counterparty information, FinCEN is 

providing a longer period in light of the 

somewhat greater complexity of those 

aspects of the proposed rule and various 

issues identified in comments received 

during the original comment period. 

Kenneth A. Blanco, 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01016 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 96 

46 CFR Parts 71, 115, and 176 

[Docket No. USCG–2020–0123] 

RIN 1625–AC65 

Safety Management Systems for 

Domestic Passenger Vessels 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is evaluating 

the potential use of Safety Management 

Systems (SMSs) to improve safety and 

reduce marine casualties on board U.S.- 

flagged passenger vessels. In this 

document, the Coast Guard is seeking 

public input and responses to specific 

questions on the feasibility, 

applicability, and nature of SMSs for 

potential use on U.S.-flagged passenger 

vessels. The Coast Guard may use this 

information to develop a proposed rule 

regarding SMSs; if so, notification of 

that proposed rule would appear in the 

Federal Register under this docket 

number. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before April 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2020–0123 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document, call or 

email Lieutenant Kimberly Gates, Vessel 

and Facility Operating Standards 

Division (CG–OES–2), U.S. Coast Guard, 

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20593; telephone 202– 

372–1455, email kimberly.m.gates@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Background 

IV. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Discussion 

V. Information Requested 

3900 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1For more on safety management systems, see the 

Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security 

Council; Spring 2016 magazine devoted to that 

topic, available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/ 

Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Proceedings%20

Magazine/Archive/2016/Vol73_No1_

Spring2016.pdf?ver=2017-05-31-120938-307 and in 

the docket. 

2On October 15, 2003, the Staten Island Ferry 

Andrew J. Barberi allided at full speed with a 

maintenance pier at the St. George’s ferry terminal. 

Eleven passengers died and 70 were injured. 

Property damage was in excess of $8 million 

dollars. See NTSB Recommendation M05–06. 

3On November 17, 2000, the U.S. small passenger 

vessel Port Imperial Manhattan was in route to 

Weehawken, New Jersey from the borough of 

Manhattan when a fire broke out in the engine 

room. There were no deaths; however, one 

passenger was treated for smoke inhalation. 

Property damage was estimated at $1.2 million 

dollars. See NTSB SMS Recommendation M02–05. 

4On January 14, 2018, the U.S. small passenger 

vessel Island Lady was in route from Port Richey, 

Florida to a casino boat located about 9 miles 

offshore with 53 people on board when a fire broke 

out involving its exhaust system. The master 

intentionally beached the vessel near shore to 

evacuate the passengers. All persons escaped by 

entering the water and wading or crawling ashore. 

Fifteen people were injured and transported to local 

hospitals. One passenger died in the hospital 

several hours after the fire. The Island Lady, valued 

at $450,000, was declared a total constructive loss. 

See NTSB SMS Recommendations M02–05 and M– 

12–03. 

5See USCG–PVA Quality Partnership Annual 

Report 2017–2019, available in the docket and also 

online at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/OurOrganization/Assistant-Commandant-forPrevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-ComplianceCG-5PC-/Office-of-Investigations-Casualty-Analysis/ 

Marine-Casualty-Reports/ (last visited Jan. 11, 

2021). 

6Certain vessel information, including limited 

casualty information, is available at https://

cgmix.uscg.mil/. 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

The Coast Guard views public 

participation as essential to effective 

rulemaking and will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. Your comment can 

help shape the outcome of this 

rulemaking. If you submit a comment, 

please include the docket number for 

this rulemaking, indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If you cannot 

submit your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for 

alternate instructions. Public comments 

are available in our online docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov, and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. Additionally, if you visit 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments or additional documents are 

posted. The Coast Guard will not issue 

a separate response to the comments 

received, but will carefully consider 

each comment and will address them in 

a proposed rule if one is developed. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see the Department of 

Homeland Security’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

We do not plan to hold a public 

meeting, but we will consider doing so 

if we determine that a meeting would be 

helpful. We would issue a separate 

Federal Register notice to announce the 

date, time, and location of such a 

meeting. 

II. Abbreviations 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

ISM International Safety Management Code 

PVA Passenger Vessel Association 

SMS Safety Management System 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Background 

Overview of Safety Management 

Systems (SMSs) 

An SMS is a structured and 

documented set of procedures enabling 

company and vessel personnel to 

effectively implement safety and 

environmental protection policies that 

are specific to that company or vessel. 

An SMS may include, among other 

things, procedures and policies for 

vessel operations, maintenance of 

equipment, responding to specific types 

of incidents, for reporting accidents or 

other non-conformities, and for 

conducting internal audits and reviews. 

This tool, if properly used, can reduce 

human factor error and subsequent 

harm to people, property, and the 

environment. Developing an SMS from 

inception reduces hazards and incidents 

through the creation of a safety culture 

which prevents accidents and protects 

the safety and health of employees. A 

fully functional SMS is continuously 

updated and evolving based on 

observations of current work practices 

and recognizing the need for changes or 

additional protections. In this way, an 

organization can improve its safety 

culture and performance.1

An SMS is designed to provide a 

strong safety management program and 

an effective means to manage complex 

or unique operations, monitor 

equipment maintenance, and mitigate 

hazards to prevent costly harm to 

people, the environment, and property. 

Furthermore, standardized operational 

procedures greatly assist vessel crews in 

performing both routine and nonroutine tasks. Lastly, an SMS that is 

properly implemented promotes a 

continuously improving safety culture. 

Using an SMS approach recognizes that 

operators are in the best position to 

identify risks associated with company 

specific operations before casualties 

happen. Effective use of an SMS can 

avoid the necessity of additional 

regulation (or in some cases, may 

possibly eliminate the need for certain 

existing regulations) by encouraging 

operators to identify and mitigate risks 

specific to their own operations. The 

Coast Guard invites comment 

identifying existing regulations that may 

no longer be needed as a result of 

adoption of an effective SMS. 

For nearly two decades, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has 

identified issues associated with failed 

safety management and oversight as the 

probable cause or a contributing factor 

in some of the most serious casualties 

involving U.S. passenger vessels, such 

as the deadly allision of passenger ferry 

with a pier in 2003,2 and fires on board 

small passenger vessels in 2000 3 and 

2018.4 This led to their issuing several 

formal safety recommendations seeking 

the required use of SMSs on U.S. 

passenger vessels, and highlighting the 

continued problems stemming from 

poor safety management. 

There are approximately 6,500 active 

and inspected passenger vessels in the 

U.S-flag fleet.5 Of these, 530 are already 

required by domestic law to have SMSs, 

in accordance with International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) treaty 

obligations, because they transport more 

than 12 passengers on foreign voyages 

(see below). The Coast Guard tracks 

accidents and incidents through the 

Marine Information for Safety and Law 

Enforcement (MISLE) database.6 From 

2017 to 2019, there were a total of 6 

vessel-related fatal accidents on 

passenger vessels, resulting in 55 

deaths. Of these, 34 were deaths by 

asphyxiation associated with a fire 

aboard the dive boat MV Conception. 

Five of the six fatal incidents, and 54 of 

the 55 deaths, involved vessels without 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3901 

7Public Law 104–324, 110 Stat. 3901 (Oct. 19, 

1996), as amended by Public Law 108–293, 118 

Stat. 1028 (Aug. 9, 2004). Prior to its amendment 

in 2010, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32 applied to a vessel 

that is (1) transporting more than 12 ‘‘passengers’’ 

as that term is now defined in 46 U.S.C. 

2101(29)(A), or is a tanker, freight vessel, or selfpropelled mobile offshore drilling unit of at least 

500 gross tons as measured under 46 U.S.C. 14302; 

and (2) is engaged on a foreign voyage, or is a 

foreign vessel departing from a place under the 

jurisdiction of the United States on a voyage, any 

part of which is on the high seas. 

8 62 FR 67506 (Dec. 24, 1997). 

9Public Law 111–281, 124 Stat. 2969 (Oct. 15, 

2010). 

10 33 CFR 96.210. 

11Section 4.7 of the ISM Code, and 33 CFR 

96.320(c)(2). 

12 33 CFR 96.330(h). 

13 33 CFR part 96, subpart D. 

14Letter from Captain J.F. Williams, U.S. Coast 

Guard, to John Groundwater, Passenger Vessel 

Association (June 12, 2017), available at https://

bit.ly/2sIcT7m (last visited July 21, 2020); see also 

Nick Blenkey, MarineLog, PVA’s Flagship SMS 

gains Coast Guard recognition (June 26, 2017), 

https://www.marinelog.com/shipping/safety-andsecurity/pvas-flagship-sms-gains-coast-guardrecognition/(last visited July 21, 2020). 

15 46 U.S.C. 3203(c). 

16 DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, Rev. 01.1, 

paragraph II (92)(b) (last revised May 21, 2018). 

17Subchapter H applies to passenger vessels, 

subchapter K applies to small passenger vessels 

carrying more than 150 passengers or having 

overnight accommodations for more than 49 

passengers, and subchapter T applies to small 

passenger vessels carrying fewer passengers than 

subchapter K denotes, but more than 6. 

18See 33 CFR 96.210. 

19See NTSB Recommendation M05–06 (https://

www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/M05_04_

06.PDF) (recommending that the Coast Guard Seek 

legislative authority to require all U.S.-flag ferry 

operators to implement safety management systems, 

and once obtained, require all U.S.-flag ferry 

operators to do so); NTSB Recommendation M12– 

03 (https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/ 

recletters/M-12-001-003.pdf) (recommending that 

the Coast Guard require all operators of U.S.-flag 

passenger vessels to implement safety management 

systems, taking into account the characteristics, 

methods of operation, and nature of service of these 

Continued 

an SMS in place. In three of the six 

incidents, the NTSB recommendations 

made in response to the incident called 

for SMS. The Coast Guard seeks 

comment on the number and type of 

accidents and fatalities that might be 

prevented by requiring SMSs on some 

subset of passenger vessels. 

The Coast Guard believes that SMSs 

may encourage the spread of relevant 

safety information, preventing 

information about vessel safety from 

being compartmentalized (or ‘‘siloed’’) 

on one vessel or in one operational 

division of a vessel or company. The 

Coast Guard seeks comment on the 

correct approach to prevent information 

from being siloed within a company. We 

seek comment on whether it would be 

more beneficial to develop an SMS that 

covers an operator’s entire fleet of 

passenger vessels with similar 

characteristics, as opposed to 

developing an SMS for each individual 

vessel. 

To fully assess the benefits of an SMS, 

we seek public feedback on how much 

siloing or sharing of information occurs 

on a typical vessel operated by a large 

business and one operated by a small 

business. Additionally, we seek 

comment on whether an SMS typically 

imposes disproportionate costs on small 

businesses. We also seek comment on 

the scope of applicability appropriate 

for an SMS requirement, including such 

factors as vessel size and type of 

operation. And, we are interested in the 

public’s input as to how an operator 

with a multi-vessel fleet would 

implement SMS across their 

organization. 

Legal Requirements for SMS 

The IMO developed the International 

Safety Management (ISM) Code and 

adopted it as part of the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 

making compliance with the ISM Code 

mandatory for certain oceangoing ships. 

The ISM Code was adopted in 1993 by 

resolution A.741(18) and entered into 

force July 1, 1998, and has been 

amended several times. In 1996, 

Congress enacted the requirements 

found in Title 46 of the United States 

Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 32, directing the 

Coast Guard to prescribe for certain 

vessels (including vessels transporting 

more than 12 passengers on foreign 

voyages) SMS regulations that were 

consistent with the ISM Code.7 The 

Coast Guard issued those regulations in 

1997, creating Title 33 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 96.8 The 

requirements of part 96 are discussed in 

the next section. 

In 2010, Congress amended 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 32 by expanding the 

applicability to include a passenger 

vessel or small passenger vessel 

transporting more passengers than a 

number prescribed by the Secretary 

based on the number of individuals on 

the vessel that could be killed or injured 

in a marine casualty.9 In this ANPRM, 

the Coast Guard is seeking information 

to help us specify a number consistent 

with 46 U.S.C. 3202. 

Existing Requirements for Passenger 

Vessels in 33 CFR Part 96 

Under 33 CFR part 96, as it is 

currently written and enforced, a vessel 

must implement an SMS if carrying 12 

or more passengers on an international 

voyage.10 SMS audits must be 

conducted as required by 33 CFR 

96.320, which includes a requirement 

that it be consistent with IMO 

Resolution A.788(19), ‘‘Guidelines on 

Implementation of the International 

Safety Management (ISM) Code by 

Administrations.’’ 11 In cases of major 

non-conformities, the flag state 

administration (the Coast Guard, for the 

United States) may require a satisfactory 

safety management audit by either the 

Coast Guard or an independent thirdparty organization.12 Third-party 

organizations, such as class societies, 

authorized by the Coast Guard may 

issue the Safety Management Certificate 

onboard the vessel, which certifies that 

the vessel has implemented a 

functioning SMS that meets the 

requirements of 33 CFR part 96.13

Additionally, some Passenger Vessel 

Association (PVA) members have 

voluntarily implemented the Coast 

Guard-recognized Flagship SMS,14

developed by the PVA. 

IV. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Discussion 

The 2010 amendments to 46 U.S.C. 

3202 limit the scope of regulations to 

passenger vessels that are ‘‘transporting 

more passengers than a number 

prescribed by the Secretary based on the 

number of individuals on the vessel that 

could be killed or injured in a marine 

casualty.’’ Further, in prescribing 

implementing regulations, the Secretary 

must consider ‘‘(1) the characteristics, 

methods of operation, nature of the 

service of these vessels; and, (2) with 

respect to ferries, the sizes of the ferry 

systems within which the vessels 

operate.’’ 15 The Secretary has delegated 

to the Coast Guard the authority to 

develop and issue these regulations.16

The Coast Guard is seeking public 

comment regarding which operations 

and types of passenger vessels would 

benefit from an SMS and why. We 

anticipate that regulations developed to 

implement the 2010 amendments would 

affect some or all domestically-operated 

vessels inspected under 46 CFR Chapter 

I subchapters H, K, and T.17 These 

passenger vessels are already required to 

implement an SMS when carrying more 

than 12 passengers on international 

voyages.18 We are considering whether 

a potential new rule should be limited 

based on: (1) Presence of overnight 

accommodations; (2) operational risk 

factors such as number of passengers, 

type of service, or size of ferry system; 

(3) age of vessel; and (4) vessel design, 

including hull material. We believe that 

a limited scope would address the 

intent of the SMS-related 

recommendations from numerous 

National Transportation Safety Board 

and Coast Guard casualty investigations 

on passenger vessels.19 The Coast Guard 

3902 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

vessels, and, with respect to ferries, the sizes of the 

ferry systems within which the vessels operate). 

seeks public comment on vessel 

characteristics, including the size of 

vessel, that would make an SMS 

appropriate. 

The Coast Guard also seeks public 

comment on additional industry 

standards, best practices, and 

regulations that should be considered or 

reviewed but are not already mentioned 

in this ANPRM. We are particularly 

interested in input regarding potential 

oversight, inspection, or auditing 

schemes for the SMSs as related to 

passenger vessel and small passenger 

vessel operations. When considering the 

content of a possible regulation, the 

Coast Guard may look to the current 

requirements of 33 CFR part 96, to the 

ISM Code, and to the Towing Safety 

Management System in 46 CFR part 138 

which provides the option of having a 

recognized third-party conduct audits of 

the SMS program. The Coast Guard will 

use the best available information on 

costs and benefits to inform any future 

regulations for passenger vessels and 

small passenger vessels. 

V. Information Requested 

Your responses to the following 

questions will help the Coast Guard 

develop a more informed rulemaking. 

The questions are not all-inclusive, and 

any supplemental information is 

welcome. In responding to each 

question, please identify the question 

you are responding to and explain the 

reasons for your answer. If responding 

to a question and your response 

includes a monetary or numerical 

figure, please provide us with sufficient 

information, data, and transparency to 

be able to re-create any calculations. We 

encourage you to let us know your 

specific concerns with respect to any of 

the requirements under consideration. 

1. For which types of passenger 

vessels should the Coast Guard require 

an SMS? How should the Coast Guard 

consider factors such as vessel size 

(including but not limited to length, 

tonnage, or capacity), design, age, type 

of service, hull material, overnight 

accommodations, size of ferry system, or 

number of passengers? 

2. What benefits would a scalable and 

structured SMS provide passenger 

vessel owners, managers, and operators? 

Should fleet size be a consideration? If 

you have any studies or data on whether 

SMSs improve safety or reduce costs, 

please provide it with your submission. 

3. Have you encountered situations in 

which information about safety risks or 

best practices was known to one vessel, 

or operational division of a vessel or 

business, but not shared with others that 

might use it to prevent incidents? To 

what extent would an SMS encourage 

sharing or prevent the isolation (‘‘siloing’’) of information? If your answer 

changes depending on the nature or size 

of the business, please include that 

information. 

4. When a passenger vessel operator 

has a multi-vessel fleet, how is an SMS 

best implemented across the fleet? 

5. Should the Coast Guard consider 

the ISM Code (IMO Resolution 

A.741(18) as amended), sections of 46 

CFR parts 136–144 (Subchapter M), 

International Organization for 

Standardization 9001:2015, or any other 

process-based safety management 

alternatives or equivalencies? If so, what 

alternatives or equivalencies should the 

Coast Guard consider? Do sections of 

these process-based safety management 

standards apply to the passenger vessel 

industry more or less than to other 

industries? Please provide specific 

details, if possible. 

6. In lieu of an SMS, should 46 CFR 

parts 78, 121, 122, 184, or 185 be 

expanded to cover items commonly 

found in an SMS, such as a preventative 

maintenance program, emergency 

preparedness and response procedures, 

and procedures for key shipboard 

operations? 

7. If a comprehensive SMS is 

required, are there more prescriptive 

USCG regulations currently in the CFR 

that could be removed because the SMS 

would serve a similar function in 

promoting safety? If so, which 

regulations? 

8. If a comprehensive SMS is not 

necessary or justified, what aspects of 

an SMS would be appropriate to include 

in this regulatory framework? Why 

would you recommend including these 

aspects in this regulatory framework 

and not others? 

9. Which industry standards, such the 

ISM Code, should be incorporated by 

reference? To what extent should an 

industry standard SMS, such as the 

PVA’s Flagship SMS, be recognized? 

10. What guidance should the Coast 

Guard make available to the passenger 

vessel industry in order to help owners 

and operators implement an SMS? 

Would such guidance save costs or time 

implementing an SMS? 

11. If you are a vessel owner or 

operator with a Safety Management 

Certificate issued under the ISM Code, 

or if you employ another type of SMS 

(for example, PVA Flagship), have you 

seen improvements in safety and 

operation from implementing the SMS? 

Please provide any supporting data, if 

available. 

12. How many new or additional 

employees would be needed to 

implement an SMS? What would be the 

potential position titles, roles, 

responsibilities, and training 

requirements of these employees? How 

many hours of work would be 

associated with each position? What 

additional costs would companies incur 

related to these employees? In your 

response, please indicate how company 

size or fleet size affects the estimate. 

13. If you are an operator that has 

chosen not to implement an SMS, what 

are reasons not to use an SMS? What 

type of operations may not benefit from 

an SMS, and why? Would the 

implementation of an SMS have any 

detrimental effects on passenger vessel 

operations? In addition to possibly 

needing to hire new employees, what 

other costs would be incurred by an 

operator implementing an SMS? 

14. How long do you estimate it 

would take to develop and fully 

implement an SMS in your 

organization? Would the SMS be 

developed by someone within your 

organization or would outside experts 

be contracted? In your response, please 

indicate how company size or fleet size 

affects the estimate. 

15. Should the Coast Guard require a 

certification process, an audit process, 

or both? If so, why, and who should 

certify or audit the SMS, how often, and 

what should the inspection or audit 

entail? Should the certification or audit 

requirement be limited to certain 

vessels? If not, why not? 

16. Should the Coast Guard-required 

SMS be subject solely to independent 

third-party audits? If so, how frequently 

should audits take place? 

17. What training or knowledge 

requirements are appropriate for 

crewmembers on passenger vessels with 

an SMS? 

18. If you are a small business, what 

economic impact would an SMS 

requirement have on you, your business, 

or your organization? In your comments, 

please explain how and to what degree 

the requirement would have an 

economic impact. Also, please explain 

why these requirements affect your 

small business differently than it might 

affect a larger business. 

19. How would the costs and benefits 

of expanding other existing regulations, 

as detailed in question 4, differ from the 

costs and benefits of requiring SMSs for 

all passenger vessels? 

20. What costs and benefits are 

associated with internal or third-party 

audits of SMSs? To what extent is there 

already capacity to audit systems 

through industry associations? Where 

possible, please break down the costs 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3903 

and benefits associated into the different 

elements of SMS audits. 

21. What incentives could the Coast 

Guard provide passenger vessel 

companies to adopt an SMS? And what 

is the most appropriate means or 

method for the Coast Guard to 

incentivize these companies to adopt an 

SMS? 

22. Are there any additional factors 

that we should consider? 

Dated: January 12, 2021. 

Karl L. Schultz, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01058 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

[NPS–GUIS–28979; PPMPSAS1Z.YP0000] 

RIN 1024–AE55 

Gulf Islands National Seashore; 

Personal Watercraft 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

proposes to revise special regulations 

governing the use of personal watercraft 

at Gulf Islands National Seashore. The 

proposed rule would reduce the 

distance of flat wake speed zones from 

certain shorelines and codify existing 

closures at West Petit Bois Island and 

the Fort Pickens ferry pier. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on 

March 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) 1024–AE55, by either of 

the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) By hard copy: Mail or hand deliver 

to: Superintendent, 1801 Gulf Breeze 

Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563. 

Instructions: Comments will not be 

accepted by fax, email, or in any way 

other than those specified above. All 

submissions received must include the 

words ‘‘National Park Service’’ or 

‘‘NPS’’ and must include the RIN 1024– 

AE55 for this rulemaking. Comments 

received may be posted without change 

to www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

‘‘1024–AE55’’. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel R. Brown, Superintendent, Gulf 

Islands National Seashore, daniel_r_

brown@nps.gov, (850) 934–2613. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Gulf Islands National Seashore (the 

Seashore) encompasses the longest 

stretch of federally protected seashore in 

the United States. The Seashore 

includes seven barrier islands that span 

nearly 160 miles, coastal mainland, and 

adjacent waters in the northeastern part 

of the Gulf of Mexico. The Seashore 

comprises 139,175 acres within 

Mississippi and Florida, 4,630 acres of 

which (consisting of Horn and Petit Bois 

Islands) are designated wilderness. The 

resources of the Seashore vary widely, 

including marine, bayou, salt marsh, 

live oak, and southern magnolia forests. 

Congress established the Seashore in 

1971 in order to preserve for public use 

and enjoyment areas possessing 

outstanding natural, historic, and 

recreational values. 16 U.S.C. 459h(a). 

The National Park Service (NPS) 

administers the Seashore as a unit of the 

National Park System and has the 

authority to regulate the use of and 

management of the Seashore as it 

considers necessary or proper. 54 U.S.C. 

100751(a). This includes the authority 

to regulate boating and other activities 

on water located within NPS units that 

is subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States. 54 U.S.C. 100751(b). 

The Seashore is one of the most 

heavily visited units in the National 

Park System. The Seashore attracts 

several million visitors from throughout 

the nation, who come to enjoy the beach 

and cultural and historic features. More 

than 80% of the Seashore is marine 

habitat and accessible only by boat or 

other watercraft. Many visitors use 

personal watercraft (PWC) to access and 

enjoy the Seashore. 

Compliance and PWC Regulations 

NPS general regulation 36 CFR 3.9 

states that PWC may be used only where 

authorized by special regulation and 

that special regulations authorizing 

PWC use may be promulgated only for 

the 21 NPS units that are identified in 

that regulation, including the Seashore. 

In 2006, the NPS promulgated special 

regulations to manage the use of PWC at 

the Seashore. 71 FR 26244 (May 4, 

2006). These regulations, which are 

found at 36 CFR 7.12, establish where 

PWC may be used, how they may be 

operated, and where they may be 

landed. Among other things, they 

permit PWC use in all waters of the 

Seashore where other motorized vessels 

are allowed. 

In 2008, Bluewater Network and other 

environmental groups filed a lawsuit 

claiming that the Environmental 

Assessment (EA) supporting the special 

regulations was inadequate and violated 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

the NPS Organic Act, and the 

Administrative Procedure Act. In 2010, 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia held that the impact analysis 

in the EA was inadequate and remanded 

the EA to the NPS. Bluewater Network 

v. Salazar, 721 F. Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 

2010). However, the court did not vacate 

the special regulations, which have 

continued to govern the use of PWC 

within the Seashore. 

In June 2019, consistent with the 

court’s decision, the NPS completed a 

Final Personal Watercraft Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

that contains a more comprehensive 

analysis of the impacts of PWC use 

within the Seashore. The Record of 

Decision (ROD) for this project was 

originally approved by the NPS 

Regional Director of Interior Region 2 on 

August 13, 2019. Since that time, NPS 

revised the selected alternative to 

remove a prohibition on PWC landing 

below the mean high tide on Horn and 

Petit Bois Islands. On December 17, 

2020, the Acting Regional Director 

signed an amended ROD with the PWC 

landing prohibition removed but all 

other elements of the original selected 

action retained. The NPS believes the 

selected alternative will continue to 

protect natural and cultural resources at 

the Seashore, minimize conflicts 

between various users, and promote 

visitor safety while allowing for a 

variety of recreational experiences. A 

copy of the FEIS, ROD, and amended 

ROD which contain a full description of 

the purpose and need for taking action, 

the alternatives considered, maps, the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed rule, and the basis for the 

selected alternative, can be found online 

at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/guis, by 

clicking on the link entitled ‘‘Personal 

Watercraft (PWC) Use Management 

Plan/EIS’’ and then clicking on the link 

entitled ‘‘Document List’’. 

Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would implement 

the selected alternative identified in the 

amended ROD for the management of 

PWC use within the Seashore. The 

selected alternative would maintain the 

existing special regulation at 36 CFR 

7.21, except as explained below.