U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–969 PDF 2012

A REVIEW OF FEDERAL 

MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS PROGRAMS 

(112–92) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 10, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger, Deputy Commandant for Operations, United 

States Coast Guard .............................................................................................. 4 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WITNESS 

Vice Admiral Peter V. Neffenger ............................................................................ 19 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

United States Coast Guard, inserts for the record: 

Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) International Data 

Exchange (IDE) Disaster Recovery (DR) site ...................................... 10 

Status of December 16, 2008, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ............. 11 

Status of research of low-cost, nonintrusive identification system for 

passenger vessels ................................................................................... 12 

Information about notice of arrival and notice of departure ................. 16 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 74969.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 74969.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 74969.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 74969.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 74969.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 74969.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 74969.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 74969.008
(1) 

A REVIEW OF FEDERAL MARITIME 

DOMAIN AWARENESS PROGRAMS 

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. 

The subcommittee is meeting this morning to review the status 

of the Coast Guard Maritime Domain Awareness programs. 

The Coast Guard operates a broad array of systems and sensors 

to gather data to enhance the Service’s awareness of activities in 

the maritime domain. At a time when Coast Guard assets and personnel are stretched very thin, Maritime Domain Awareness programs can act as a critical force multiplier, but that can only happen if the programs are properly implemented and information is 

integrated and distributed for action at all levels of the Coast 

Guard. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. 

I remain skeptical as to whether the Coast Guard has ever 

looked at all these systems in totality to determine whether they 

are providing the data in an efficient manner. Each system was designed for a specific mission goal and developed independently of 

each other. As a result, many systems provide the Coast Guard duplicative information. 

For instance, most large vessels are required to carry Automatic 

Identification System transponders in addition to a Long Range 

Identification and Tracking System to track their movements. The 

Coast Guard proposes that fishing vessels carry AIS transponders 

in addition to vessel monitoring system units they already are required to carry and operate. 

Finally, the Department of Homeland Security’s plan for small 

vessel security proposes to require boat owners to buy new technologies to track their vessels. Meanwhile, the Department proposes to develop radar systems to do the same thing. 

Each of these requirements and proposed mandates are and will 

be very expensive and, in some cases, prohibitive for vessel owners. 

Yet it is unclear how they will benefit safety and security in our 

ports and waterways if the Coast Guard lacks the ability to properly integrate and analyze the data. 

2 

I am concerned that after 10 years and billions of dollars the 

Coast Guard still lacks the infrastructure to sufficiently tie these 

different systems into one common operating picture. Given the 

scant resources the Coast Guard plans to devote to these programs 

over the next 5 years, I question whether the Service remains committed to fully integrating these programs. 

For example, the Coast Guard appears to be backing away from 

its stated goal of providing interoperability between all Coast 

Guard assets and shore-based facilities. The GAO recently found 

that the Service only intends to install an advanced communications system on less than half of its recapitalized assets. 

Maritime Domain Awareness is a critical tool to maximize the 

Coast Guard’s capabilities to safeguard American interests in U.S. 

waters and on the high seas. However, the duplicative mandates 

and the lack of progress in delivering a common operational picture 

have been a major source of frustration. Rather than continuing to 

devote time and money on programs that do not function as intended, it may be time to reevaluate the MDA strategy. 

I am anxious to hear from the Admiral on what he thinks the 

future holds for MDA programs and how we can best move forward 

to ensure taxpayers getting a good return on the very significant 

investments they have made on the Coast Guard’s MDA programs. 

I want to thank Admiral Neffenger for appearing today and congratulate him on his recent promotion, and I look forward to hearing his testimony. 

With that being said, I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this morning’s hearing to evaluate and assess the Coast 

Guard’s important Maritime Domain Awareness activities. 

Maritime Domain Awareness, or MDA, is defined by the Coast 

Guard as our understanding of anything in the global maritime environment that can impact the security, economy, or environment 

of the United States. The maritime domain remains critical to the 

Nation’s security and economy, especially the maritime transportation system. 

The maritime transportation system has over 300,000 square 

miles of waterways, 95,000 miles of shoreline, 10,000 miles of navigable waterways, and 361 ports of call. That includes 8 of the 

world’s 50 highest volume ports. 

Aside from infrastructure, over 60 million Americans are employed within 100 miles of our coasts and contribute over $4 billion 

annually to the Nation’s economy. These jobs rely on the security 

that comes with Maritime Domain Awareness, and I am pleased 

that several positive steps have been taken since 2002 to alert the 

Coast Guard and other Federal agencies of potential threats arising 

from beyond our shores. 

Congress has expanded significantly the amount of data that 

commercial vessels must submit to the Coast Guard regarding 

their cargoes, registries, crews, and routes. For example, new international vessel tracking programs such as the Automatic Identification System and Long Range Identification and Tracking System 

have been implemented. We have also enhanced our situational 

awareness by requiring most commercial vessels to report to the 

Coast Guard their arrival times at U.S. ports at least 96 hours in 

3 

advance. Additionally, integrated operation centers have been established to better coordinate and facilitate information sharing between the Coast Guard and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. 

The end result is that more assets and resources are now devoted 

to MDA. These resources are more sophisticated, better coordinated, and more capable of providing actionable intelligence concerning the maritime domain. 

The question is whether these actions have made our shores 

more secure from potential maritime threats. Are our communities, 

industries, and infrastructure safer? 

The assumptions underlying our assessment of maritime threats 

and our strategies to address these risks have received their share 

of criticism over the years. The Government Accountability Office, 

the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, and the 

RAND Corporation have all raised legitimate concerns, especially 

regarding the threat characterization of small vessels; and unlike 

after September 11, 2001, when resources were freely available to 

address deficiencies in Homeland Security, we operate now in a 

much more difficult budget environment. Present fiscal constraints 

leave us little choice but to examine carefully the assets and resources we devote to MDA, especially to the Coast Guard, whose 

budget is already stretched thin. 

I have said this before, and I will keep saying it. We cannot expect the Coast Guard to do more with less. The sad reality is that 

the Coast Guard is doing less with less, and MDA is no exception. 

The Coast Guard needs to maximize any investment in new technologies, new programs, and human resources to fulfill Coast 

Guard missions and whenever possible leverage those capabilities 

to support MDA. But we also need to ensure that those MDA programs and activities within the Coast Guard that remain funded 

are absolutely essential and that we eliminate MDA activities that 

are redundant or unnecessary or are an unnecessary drain on 

Coast Guard resources. 

Admiral Neffenger confronts this dilemma on a daily basis as the 

Coast Guard’s Deputy Commandant for Operations. Admiral, I 

commend you for your efforts in balancing these competing demands within the Coast Guard. I look forward to hearing from you 

this morning about how we might best maintain the quality of 

Maritime Domain Awareness provided by the Coast Guard in an 

era of constrained Federal budgets. 

In closing, no longer can we simply ask how much MDA can we 

afford. Rather, we need to ask ourselves how much MDA can we 

afford not to have. To a large extent, the shape and effectiveness 

of our future maritime security will ride on how we answer that 

question. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

Today, our witness is Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger, 

Deputy Commandant for Operations. 

Admiral, you are recognized for your statement. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL PETER V. NEFFENGER, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES 

COAST GUARD 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today and for your continued advocacy, interest, and oversight of the Coast Guard’s Maritime Domain Awareness efforts. 

Having this past month assumed the role of Coast Guard Deputy 

Commandant for Operations, I am pleased to update you on the 

Coast Guard’s approach to Maritime Domain Awareness and the 

improvements we have made toward achieving MDA goals. 

As the Deputy Commandant for Operations, my primary responsibility is to set the strategic direction for the Coast Guard’s mission to ensure the safety, security, and stewardship of the Nation’s 

waters. This includes the very important matter of Maritime Domain Awareness. I have a brief opening statement and would like 

to submit my written testimony for the record. 

During my previous tours as an operational field commander, I 

have observed our Nation’s MDA capabilities improve over time. I 

was Commander and Captain of the Port of Sector Los AngelesLong Beach from 2003 to 2006, Commander of the 9th Coast Guard 

District in the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway Region 

from 2008 to 2010, and then most recently the Deputy National Incident Commander for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. 

In each of these roles, I thought about what it meant to have effective Maritime Domain Awareness on a daily basis and how important it is in order to meet our mission. Whether looking for an 

oil sheen, a drug trafficker, or a person in distress, you need effective awareness to deliver the right capabilities to the right places 

at the right times with the right combinations of people and partners. This requires a combination of technology, sound regulatory 

regimes, and solid partnerships. 

So, as you said, Mr. Chairman, we must not only understand the 

various systems and capabilities but also how they operate together 

as a whole; and our understanding of this has evolved over time. 

MDA is much more than technology, although this is an important 

enabler. In addition to having a picture of maritime activity, I need 

to understand that picture, know who the various stakeholders are 

at public and private levels, and understand how the system operates together; and this is a top priority for me as I enter this assignment. 

We must also share a common definition of MDA. The National 

Strategy for Maritime Security spells it out as follows: The effective 

understanding of anything associated with the maritime domain 

that could impact the safety, security, economy, or environment of 

the United States. 

That is a tall order. But as lead Federal agency for maritime 

safety, security, and stewardship, the Coast Guard has extensive 

authorities, dual status as a military and law enforcement agency, 

and is a member of the intelligence community. These traits suit 

us uniquely to take a national leadership role in developing Maritime Domain Awareness. 

5 

There are also many technical and regulatory pieces involved in 

MDA, many of which you have mentioned, including common operational picture, Automatic Identification System, the Long Range 

Identification and Tracking System, the Nationwide Automatic 

Identification System, interagency operation centers, and the various regulatory components such as advance notices of arrival, 

among others. And so if I could just highlight a few of these. 

The current common operational picture integrates the Coast 

Guard with Department of Defense and intelligence community 

partners through DOD’s Global Command and Control System, 

also known as GCCS. While this is an effective system, access is 

necessarily limited to Federal stakeholders with appropriate clearances. As such, strategically, I intend to continue moving the Coast 

Guard towards a Web-based delivery of information to partners at 

all levels in our seaports. 

The Automatic Identification System enables maritime authorities to identify and locate large commercial vessels. Our current 

proposed AIS and notice of arrival regulation will improve MDA by 

covering smaller commercial vessels and requiring notices of departure from U.S. ports. 

The global Long Range Identification and Tracking System became operational in 2008, and today more than 100 flagged States 

participate. The Coast Guard established the national data center 

in the United States to serve as the central collection point for ship 

reports received from U.S.-flagged vessels. We have transferred responsibility for the International Data Exchange to the European 

Maritime Safety Agency but continue to maintain backup capability for this service in the United States. 

Overall, the LRIT program is functioning well and provides useful information on vessel arrivals and operations offshore, and it 

remains an essential component of our MDA efforts. 

Domestically, we have interim Nationwide Automatic Identification System capability in 58 major ports and coastal areas. This 

will migrate to permanent capability over the next several years 

and will be collocated with Rescue 21 equipment to leverage existing investments. 

NAIS complements the Long Range Identification and Tracking. 

Information from each system as well as from our advanced notices 

of arrival and other national technical means enhance our MDA domestically and overseas, and in fact information from these systems helped us to map locations of commercial vessels and to target relief efforts during the 2010 earthquake response in Haiti. 

At the Department level, interagency operations centers provide 

partners at high-priority ports with a framework to plan, coordinate, and execute maritime operations in real time. WatchKeeper 

is a collaborative Web-based information system designed to provide shared awareness of port conditions, port assets, and coordination of operational activities among port partners. It allows coordination across operational networks without the physical collocation 

of watchstanders, and at present is up and running at 18 of our 

35 sectors, with the remainder scheduled for installation by the end 

of fiscal year 2014. 

Perhaps most important, underpinning our technical and regulatory regimes are critical partnerships. At the sector level, area 

6 

maritime security committees bring together partners from Federal, State, local, and private entities to improve communication 

and information sharing; and these partnerships have strengthened as they have matured and will remain a top priority in our 

seaports. And of course we have longstanding international partnerships as well. 

Finally, to speak to overarching governance, I serve as senior 

chairperson of the Coast Guard’s executive team charged with improving MDA and information sharing. I will convene the team for 

the first time under my direction this month and intend to provide 

robust oversight of our ongoing MDA efforts. 

In closing, I am grateful for your advocacy, support, and interest 

in the Coast Guard and our priorities with MDA. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Admiral. 

The Coast Guard collects data on a vessel’s identification, position, crew, voyage history, and other matters through several systems that are supposed to fuse together into a user-defined common operational picture, as we understand it. Does the Coast 

Guard have the infrastructure and the capabilities to bring all of 

these different MDA systems together to produce a comprehensive 

common operational picture? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. With respect to the common operational 

picture, I think I mentioned that we currently have a system that 

we are using for the DOD that provides us with a fairly comprehensive picture of what is operating in the oceans, and we gather that picture through both national technical means as well as 

through things like Long Range Identification and Tracking. 

As you know, the goal is to have a user-defined picture in every 

seaport—every major seaport of this country, and to some extent 

we do have that. It does not fuse and fully integrate all information 

at this point. WatchKeeper will ultimately—we hope to ultimately 

migrate WatchKeeper, to evolve WatchKeeper to the point where 

you can do that. 

Some of the challenges associated with that are the vast volume 

of information. So what we have discovered over time—and I can 

speak from my own experience on this—is that if you simply just 

load a picture with a bunch of information without an ability to 

sort and somehow delineate or discriminate within that, it becomes 

challenging for the WatchKeepers, for the watchstanders to understand what they are looking at and certainly challenging for local 

operational commanders. 

So what we tried to do is integrate the most critical information 

initially into our various common operational pictures that we are 

pushing out to our ports through our current DOD-sponsored COP 

as well as WatchKeeper and then evaluating how to best integrate 

additional information, whether that be sensor information from 

camera systems in ports, photographs of vessels, and the like. 

So I suppose the short answer to your question, sir, would be 

that I don’t think our common operational picture is as fully integrated as I would like to see it in the future. I think it is much 

better than it has ever been, and it is providing our operational 

commanders with a much more complete picture of what is happening in their individual port environments at geographic regions 

7 

than they had before. The challenge is going to be in integrating 

the various individual types of sensors and feeds that each port has 

and in determining, you know, what best to put in there and also 

to bring into the picture more of our local port partners. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So it is safe to assume this will be a priority of 

yours? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Absolutely. Yes, sir. In fact, it is one of the 

questions that I have already asked of my staff. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And could we expect—we would like to hear back 

from you, recognizing you are relatively new in putting this together, of what are your kind of views. I want to give you a little 

bit of time, but we would like to come back and without waiting 

for another hearing or waiting 6 months or a year, because I think 

this is pretty important information. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Yes, sir, I would be happy to come back 

and brief the committee at anytime. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. The Coast Guard has spent over 10 years and almost $700 million to build the C4ISR system for deployment 

on its recapitalized vessels and aircraft. How this highly touted 

program is supposed to have tremendous capabilities and the goal 

of the system was to deliver a C4ISR-equipped asset which can collect and process MDA information from a variety of inputs and 

share that data with other Coast Guard assets and shore-based facilities in a common operating picture, which I think is just outstanding for what we are looking to do. 

But the GAO recently found that the Coast Guard apparently no 

longer plans to deploy the system on all recapitalized assets and 

is backing away from asset-to-asset data sharing. So the question 

is, to you, Admiral, is a fully interoperable C4ISR system installed 

on each Coast Guard asset still a goal for the Service? And, if not, 

why not? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Yes, sir, that is still a goal for the Service. 

Although, again, what we have learned over time is that one of the 

challenges associated with the program I think as it was originally 

envisioned is the rate at which technology refreshes and the rate 

at which certain technical systems become obsolete. Those are expensive systems, as you know, and you have already mentioned the 

amount of money that we have put into it. 

Many of those acquisition baselines were developed in more favorable fiscal environments, so what we had to do, given what we 

believe will be the fiscal constraints into the future, is look at this 

again, determine whether we need to adjust our strategy going forward. But the goal is still to have complete interoperability with 

the ability to push the picture. 

We are some measure along that road already. I would hate to 

put a percentage on it, but we do have a significant amount of capability to move information amongst our larger assets, aircraft, 

and cutter fleet. But we are not where we had originally envisioned 

the system being at this point, although it is still a goal of mine 

to get us there, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Last question for now. In testimony before this 

subcommittee in 2009, the Coast Guard stated it was working with 

a commercial satellite provider to test the feasibility of pushing 

AIS coverage out to a range of 2,000 nautical miles. The Coast 

8 

Guard informed the subcommittee it hoped to have this system 

operational by 2010. Can you give us the status of the initiative? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Yes, sir. We actually did a proof of concept 

with a commercial satellite provider in 2010 to look at whether or 

not the capability could work. We found that it did work. But in 

the course of doing that we also discovered that we have much 

more capability through national technical means as well as 

through current LRIT information that we are getting that we 

don’t think it is—we no longer have a program for putting our own 

satellite up. We think that there are less expensive ways to do it, 

whether that be through ultimately leasing some commercial space 

on commercial satellites. But the truth is that we are currently getting a significant amount of information, much more than we expected to get, through these other means. So we don’t have a program right now to pursue our own Coast Guard satellite system, 

sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, back to the C4ISR, I understand that with your answer 

you say you are still committed to making investments, but from 

what I understand of the progress of the C4ISR investments, there 

are eight separate segments. You are on segment two in the Coast 

Guard. That leaves six left. You are anticipating about $40 million 

a year over the next 5 years for C4ISR investment. Some of that 

is going to get chewed up by the technology churn that you noted, 

leaving something less than $20 million to meet a goal of $681 million or to meet a goal to implement six more segments. 

I don’t see how you do that. I don’t see how that happens given 

the budget constraints, given the challenges with turnover and 

technology. And so is it realistic to expect the Coast Guard will upgrade all of its C4ISR capabilities for the full eight segments, given 

this budget environment? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. As you said, sir, I think the budget environment makes it challenging. Those programs, as you know, as I 

said, were developed during a time of greater fiscal certainty or 

what we expected to be greater fiscal certainty. I don’t know what 

the current plan would allow, given where we may be with the 

budget over the next few years. 

What I can promise you, however, is that that is a question that 

I have to ask and get detailed answers to as I move into this role, 

and I intend to explore that in more detail. And I would be happy 

to come back to you as I learn more about that myself and figure 

out where we are going with that, with our technology refresh, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, please do that. Please do that. 

On the question of coordination and dissemination of vessel 

tracking data, as much as I want to commend the IMO and the 

Coast Guard for initiating multiple vessel tracking programs, some 

critics have expressed concern about some of the longer range 

tracking data being gathered as duplicative or redundant and 

therefore may be adding little value for the extra costs. 

First, do you agree with that criticism? Second, what is the distinction between the AIS and the LRIT? And, third, what has the 

Coast Guard done to address the criticism? 

9 

So do you agree with the criticism about redundancy? How would 

you distinguish between AIS and LRIT data? And what has the 

Coast Guard done to address the criticism, sir? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, I mean, I understand concerns about 

redundancy. There is a certain amount of redundancy that is nice 

to have in a system, especially when you are looking for awareness. 

If you go back to the definition that says you want effective awareness of everything that is happening, sometimes you want to make 

sure you can verify that awareness through multiple sources. So I 

think a certain amount of redundancy actually improves the health 

of the system and makes the system more reliable, more dependable, and more sustainable. 

With respect to the differences between AIS and Long Range 

Identification and Tracking, AIS is a VHF-based system, so it is 

primarily line of sight, although it can be bounced beyond line of 

sight through satellite connection. Long Range Identification and 

Tracking is a satellite-based system. It typically plays off of or 

reads off of something called the global marine distress and signaling system transceivers that are on board large commercial vessels, applies only to SOLAS-based vessels, as opposed to AIS, which 

applies to more than just our SOLAS-based vessels and is carried 

on other vessels, and in fact our rulemaking would extend it to others. So the difference is in the way in which they transmit information and then the types of vessels that would be required to carry 

it. 

But with respect to redundancy, I would argue that the relative 

cost, particularly for large commercial vessels, is minimal to add 

one or the other systems to the vessel. They are both required for 

different reasons. AIS was originally envisioned as a collision 

avoidance system. So what we are doing is we are leveraging a system that was originally designed to tell each other where you were 

in a more robust way and finding out that you can actually gain 

good position information out of it. 

And then a certain amount of redundancy I like as an operational commander to say—to know if, for example, without any 

malintent somebody’s AIS system isn’t transmitting or somebody’s 

LRIT isn’t transmitting, I have got another means of identifying 

that vessel, and it just becomes a backup system. 

Mr. LARSEN. What steps has the Coast Guard taken to reduce 

the clutter in tracking data in order to produce actionable intelligence? 

Part of the problem that we always have is we are collecting all 

this data, but there is no effective way to sift through it to get 

something to act on. So what steps has the Coast Guard taken to 

reduce that clutter and to sift through the data so that you have 

something that you can act on in a timely manner? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. You have hit on a key to Maritime Domain 

Awareness effectiveness. As I said before, just a picture of dots on 

a screen doesn’t tell you much. But what we have learned over the 

past 10 years or so in particular that we have been collecting data 

is you learn a lot about who is operating in the system. So some 

of the way you sift through that data is by just eliminating known 

trusted operators. So you can just erase them from the screen or 

just layer them out of the screen. 

10 

The goal is ultimately to be able to generate a picture for yourself, whether that be a common operational picture or an understanding picture that says, all right, I know who the trusted operators are, I know how the system normally works, I know what I 

expect to normally see in there. Remove all of that and show me 

what is left. And now I will pay attention to what is left. 

That is sort of in a high-level answer as how we do that. There 

is some interesting technical ways in which that is done, and we 

would be happy to show you that in some detail at some time if 

you would be interested. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah, that would be interesting. 

With regards to the management of the LRIT data, it is my understanding the Coast Guard established the national data center 

to serve as a central collection point for ship reports received from 

U.S.-flagged vessels as required by the IMO LRIT regulation. In 

addition, the Coast Guard established the International Data Exchange to manage the global data. The Coast Guard maintained 

the IDE on an interim basis and then transferred that management to the European Maritime Safety Agency. 

That being the case, can you explain why the Coast Guard continues to maintain an alternative IDE site for the international 

community? How much does that cost? Is that itself redundant and 

duplicative? And, given those questions, why does the Coast Guard 

continue to maintain an alternative site? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. To your very last point, I think that we will 

look at whether it makes sense to do that for the long term. 

I think the initial feeling was let’s make sure that the European 

Maritime Safety Agency manages the site effectively and that it operates effectively for our purposes. So that was part of it. 

I don’t know the cost off the top of my head. I will get that for 

the record for you, sir, and find out what that has cost. 

[The information follows:] 

Direct cost associated with the U.S. Coast Guard operating 

and maintaining the Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) International Data Exchange (IDE) Disaster 

Recovery (DR) site is $35,000 per year in recurring annual 

support costs and software licenses. 

The Coast Guard maintains the (alternative) LRIT IDE 

DR site to ensure continuous uninterrupted operation of 

the International LRIT System during any scheduled or 

unscheduled outage of the permanent LRIT IDE operated 

by the European Maritime Safety Agency. By doing this, 

the U.S. meets the security, safety, environmental protection, and search and rescue goals in accordance with 

SOLAS Chapter V/19–1. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. And then I need to look at the actual agreement that we entered with the European Maritime Safety Agency 

to see what it puts us—if anything, what kinds of requirements it 

puts on us for maintaining that into the future. 

But I know the initial concern was to have capabilities still there 

in the event the European Maritime Safety Agency system failed 

11 

for some reason. I can answer those other questions as I dig more 

deeply into it, and I will get back to you with those, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Please do so. 

Finally, on the AIS rulemaking, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 16, 2008, to expand the 

carriage requirement to carry AIS transponders to certain commercial vessels of less than 300 gross tons. It has been over 31⁄2 years 

since the Coast Guard published the NPRM. How does the Coast 

Guard—sorry, when does the Coast Guard intend to publish a final 

rule? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, the rule is in final clearance now; and 

as soon as it clears, we will publish the rule, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. When do you anticipate it will clear? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. I don’t know exactly when. I know that it 

is in final clearance at this point, and we are just waiting for that 

to come through, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. And who is responsible for final clearance? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, it runs through the administration. 

So it is through the clearance process in the administration at this 

point. 

Mr. LARSEN. So somewhere in the bowels of the White House? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. But I can get you a specific answer for 

where that is. 

[The information follows:] 

This rulemaking project remains in final agency clearance. 

Once cleared, it will be formally submitted to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Given the 

complexity of the rule and the potential costs that would 

be imposed on the maritime public, a timetable for the formal submission of the rule to OIRA cannot be provided at 

this time. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Admiral, for being here today, sir. Appreciate you 

being here and thank you for all the great things that the sailors 

and airmen of the Coast Guard do on a daily basis that none of us 

know about. So thank you very much for that. 

Sir, the Department of Homeland Security released a Small Vessel Security Strategy in 2008 to address the risks associated with 

potential use of small recreational vehicles to stage an attack on 

the United States or U.S. interests. Everybody is keenly aware of 

USS Cole and what Commander Kirk Lippold had to go through. 

In January of 2011 DHS released a Small Vessel Security Strategy Implementation Plan. What is the Coast Guard doing to monitor the potential risks emanating from small vessels in U.S. ports? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, that fits squarely into that question 

of Maritime Domain Awareness. So some of what we have done are 

the things that we have been doing for sometime now, which is 

every sector commander, port commander, every local Coast Guard 

office is required to understand who is operating in their ports. So 

12 

it begins with that understanding: What does normal look like in 

my port? What kind of marinas do I have? Who operates out of 

those marinas? Who owns the marinas? Who manages the marinas? And so forth. 

We use our local small boat stations, our auxiliary. We bring 

those people into our area maritime security committees. So there 

is a governance piece associated with this. That is where it starts. 

Obviously, not the final answer, because you have still got potential bad actors out there. 

The second piece is to continue to work with the States for more 

robust oversight of boating registration and more robust reporting 

of boating registration. We have got some ways to go yet, although 

we have come a long way on that score. 

And then, ultimately, it is how do you balance the requirement 

to know where vessels are with the very real pressures to maintain 

low costs for operators; and, of course, there are some of the privacy concerns and others that people have with respect to requiring 

registration and the like. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. The Coast Guard has gone through an implementation plan that calls for research for a low-cost, nonintrusive identification system for passenger vessels; is that correct? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. What is the current status of that research, 

sir? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. That—again, I haven’t got an answer to 

that question for you today, but I will get that for you, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK, I understand. 

[The information follows:] 

Current studies and testing include transponder-based systems, particularly the Automated Identification System 

(AIS) and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technologies, to enhance the information available to the U.S. 

Coast Guard while performing law enforcement operations. 

The research has provided an initial test of the feasibility 

of integrating AIS, RFID, and radar signals to improve 

maritime domain awareness. 

Ongoing research on technical features of high-frequency 

surface radar for vessel tracking has been extended to 

focus on small vessels. This work leverages existing deployed coastal radar systems by refining the ways signals 

are processed, as well as combining the information these 

signals yield with other data about observed vessels, and 

making it available in useful and appropriate ways to Department of Homeland Security personnel for operational 

purposes. 

As this research proceeds, it will be possible to estimate 

the effectiveness of systems that incorporate the capabilities of these technologies. The research effort is sensitive 

to potential deployment costs; as a result, it will include 

quantitative information about cost-effectiveness and the 

overall contribution of these technologies as awareness and 

13 

defense elements to the Department of Homeland Security’s Small Vessel Security Strategy. 

Amplifying information is contained in the Coast Guard’s 

September 7, 2012, report to Congress titled: ‘‘Small Boat 

Attack Mitigation Efforts.’’ 

Mr. CRAVAACK. If the Government—if we are planning to have 

a nonintrusive type of vessel identification system to track vessels, 

what is the point, then, of having—you might not be able to answer 

this question, but what is the point of then having small vessel 

owners install an AIS system? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, again, going back to the idea that not 

all redundant systems are necessarily bad, it depends on how that 

redundancy plays into an overarching understanding of the system 

and feeding you information. 

My understanding is that we would not be requiring AIS on absolutely everybody out there. You have still got some pretty small 

operators and some small craft that wouldn’t be required to have 

that. And so a combination of a nonintrusive system, which might 

be more passive, less ability to spoof the system, if you will, or to 

take advantage of the system, combined with one where you have 

trusted operators, people who say I am putting this on board, I am 

operating it, it kind of gives you that ability to do a little bit of a 

cross-check among yourselves. So I think there is some value to 

thinking about some systems that give you the same kinds of information but from different sources. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Sir, from your position, what keeps you up at 

night? What do you think is the biggest threat to our global maritime situation? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, I think getting to that perfect state 

of effective awareness of what is operating. I don’t know that we 

will ever get there, but, you know, that is a big ocean out there, 

and there is a lot of people operating in it. And I think that it is 

not so much that it keeps me awake at night, but it really keeps 

me thinking at night as to how—you know, what is the most effective way to understand what is happening in a way that tells me 

more than just what is out there? I mean, that is a piece of information. But what I really want to know is what is it doing out 

there, who can I trust, who are the people operating it, where are 

they going, and how are they connected to the various parts of the 

world where people put things on vessels and send them our direction? 

Because ultimately what you are trying to do is find that one or 

two, you know, real bad actors out of the, you know, 50,000 or 

60,000 or so really good actors out there, and that is a challenge. 

I used to think about that every day when I was sitting in Los Angeles and Long Beach and I would see 13,000—at the time it was 

13,000 actual containers a day that were coming in the port, and 

that kept me up at night trying to think about, you know, how do 

you have any idea what is coming in. 

So I think the trick is you have got to know a lot about the system. Going back to Chairman LoBiondo’s earlier point, you really 

have to understand how all the pieces come together to paint a picture of what looks like normal in the environment. 

14 

Mr. CRAVAACK. All right. Thank you again, Admiral, and I will 

yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Master Chief Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I am late. I 

had two other hearings simultaneously going on. 

Admiral, good to have you with us this morning. 

Admiral, under current law, as you know, the Department of 

Homeland Security is required to establish interagency operation 

centers in all high-priority U.S. ports. However, at this time I am 

told that less than 10 such centers exist nationwide. 

Let me put a three-part question to you, Admiral: Is this still a 

priority for the Coast Guard, A; B, do you have a strategy to establish joint operations centers in all Coast Guard sectors; and, C, 

what level of resources would be necessary to accomplish this? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Thank you, sir, and good morning. 

With respect to IOC priority, it is still a priority for us, but let 

me tell you about how my thinking has evolved with respect to integrated operations centers. I think the concept is absolutely valid. 

If you don’t have people talking to one another in a geographic region, people who have like responsibilities or overlapping like responsibilities and who have generally the same interests in the 

safety, security, or stewardship concerns that you do, then you run 

the risk of, at best, duplicating efforts or, at worst, working counter 

to one another. 

So that was what I think was some of the thinking driving operations centers—integrated operations centers to begin with. 

Now, how my thinking has evolved over time is that I think in 

some locations that means you have to be collocated physically, and 

that is possible to do, particularly in those very traditional port environments where everyone seems to be in the same general geographic location. But I think that it is possible to do that virtually 

in some locations and sometimes more effectively virtually. 

I think about my time up on the Great Lakes. It would be very 

challenging there to do one or two integrated operations centers 

that could manage that whole system. Because from the perspective of the Great Lakes, that is a system that you care about. You 

almost have to think of it as a port system, and you want a bigger 

picture of how that goes. So, in that case, it is tough to figure out 

where you actually put one that can manage that system. So there 

is a virtual piece to that. So I think that there is a combination 

of both physical collocation as well as virtual collocation through 

software and looking at the same picture. 

So where are we with respect to that? I think I mentioned before, 

fully integrating all of that information has been a challenge. We 

are about halfway through our implementation of the software 

piece of that integrated operations center. That is called 

WatchKeeper. So 18 of our 35 sectors. We have about 10 locations 

where we have got physical collocation. 

Again, with the challenges we are facing—and these are not— 

this is not meant to be an excuse. It is simply a statement of fact 

as I dig into this. Interagency agreements are a little bit challenging. Sometimes it is hard to get people as they are facing budget cuts to continue to put people into those centers. They see that 

as a reduction of a capability elsewhere. So I think it is a matter 

15 

of moving enough capability into those collocated centers to have 

it not feel as if you are being asked to staff two different places at 

one time. 

So some of those agreements are more challenging, I think, than 

were envisioned, and some of the longer term commitments as people face budget crisis and start to look to cut back certain staff 

overhead can become a bit of a challenge. 

That said, I know that our port captains, our captains of the 

port, our sector commanders, working through their area maritime 

security committees, are doing some pretty significant work with 

respect to maintaining the connections that they need to maintain 

for sharing of information. 

So I think the information sharing piece is coming along well. It 

is not ultimately where I would like to see it. And I think the question with respect to how many of those physical collocation centers 

is still open in my mind, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral, you may not want to insert your oar into these waters, 

but do you want to venture a guess as to the level of resources that 

would be needed? And you may not be able to do that. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Well, I think it is going to be challenging 

right now to put a dollar figure on it. What we are going to focus 

on right now is getting the software piece right. Because no matter 

what we do with respect to actual physical centers, you have got 

to have a backbone for sharing information. So we are putting efforts into that WatchKeeper software program, and then we will 

continue to work the centers that are currently existing and look 

to see what we have to identify for the future. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Admiral, for being with us. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Landry. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Vice Admiral, the Coast Guard has still not released a final rulemaking on the Automatic Identification System; is that correct? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. LANDRY. And, as you know, there are many unanswered 

questions even if it is feasible for the domestic supply industry to 

comply with the NOA regulations. Wouldn’t it be better for the 

Coast Guard resources—a better use of Coast Guard resources and 

provide more certainty for the industry if the Coast Guard put domestic compliance with NOA on the back burner for now and focused on laying down the rules of the road as it pertains to AIS 

and once the AIS is tested and the Coast Guard finds itself needing 

more domain awareness, then returning back to notice of arrival? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. As I understand, sir, with respect to notice 

of arrival, what we are looking at is adding notice of departure requirements and then changing somewhat the requirements for people who would have to provide notice of arrival information in addition to the AIS carriage requirement component of that notice. 

Mr. LANDRY. A notice of departure. Could you explain? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. It would be a notice that would be required 

prior to departure from a port for a vessel so that you have an 

16 

awareness of both the entry of the vessel as well as its intended 

departure. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, what happens to the supply vessels now in my 

district that basically move around from—they leave port and then 

go from one rig to another rig to another rig and then back to that 

port again? The problem we are having is that they don’t—when 

they leave, they may be detoured to go to a different rig. And then 

it is kind of like a UPS guy goes from house to house to house, but 

sometimes they may bring him a package sent to another house. 

You see what I am saying? I am trying to understand how a notice 

of departure would help. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Yes, sir, I see exactly what you are saying. 

I will be honest with you. I would have to look at the specific rule 

as it applies to that. But my thinking is that it would be both unrealistic for us and unwieldy for us to even worry about those kinds 

of things. I mean, what we are really looking at is, first of all, what 

is a normal operation out there? So let me look—let me get to you 

with the answer specifically with respect to OSVs, but I don’t believe that it would require them to report every single rig that 

they—— 

[The information follows:] 

The Coast Guard has issued additional regulations for notice of arrival (NOA) for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities in response to security measures as required by the 

SAFE Port Act of 2006. This rulemaking requires owners 

or operators of floating facilities, mobile offshore drilling 

units, and vessels to submit NOA information to the National Vessel Movement Center prior to engaging in OCS 

activities. The amendments are intended to enhance maritime security, safety, and environmental protection by increasing maritime domain awareness (MDA) on units and 

personnel engaging in OCS activities. The Coast Guard 

published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 

June 2009 and made some adaptations to enhance clarity 

based on the comments received. No adverse comments 

were received regarding the applicability to U.S. vessels, 

and no significant impact on energy production was or is 

anticipated. The final rule cleared DHS and OMB, was 

signed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard on December 22, 2010, and published on January 13, 2011; effective 

date is February 14 (76 Fed. Reg. 2254). 

As noted, the Coast Guard received no adverse comments 

pertaining to application of the rule to U.S. vessels in the 

NPRM. However, upon publication and implementation of 

the final rule, industry noted significant concerns. In response, the Coast Guard has initiated a redesign of the 

form used to collect the data, effectively suspending enforcement, and convened a working group under the partnership with the Offshore Marine Service Association to 

specifically address the design of an OCS-specific reporting 

form, as well as alternatives to the electronic submission 

of an NOA. The Coast Guard has made great strides towards creating a process and reporting form that is both 

17 

workable for industry, while also providing the Coast 

Guard the critical information it needs to maintain safety 

and security. This form will include: creating an offline option; third party vendor option; and an import function so 

that vessels operating on the OCS have the ability to copy, 

save, and email the required information. 

The Coast Guard drafted and interprets current regulations (33 CFR Part 146) to require that OSVs give due notice while transiting from OCS block to OCS block area, 

but not within a single OCS block area (i.e., from rig-torig within a single OCS block area). This requirement was 

intended to maximize maritime safety and security, and to 

better protect mariners operating on the OCS, by providing real-time visibility of what and where vessels and 

personnel actually are or are anticipated to be in any given 

area. The information required to be submitted by this 

regulation will greatly assist the Coast Guard in evaluating risk associated with OCS activities and to manage 

appropriate resources should a significant incident occur 

(e.g., environmental or national security), and a coordinated response is necessary. 

Finally, the Coast Guard is committed to working with the 

regulated public to find a way forward, in terms of policy 

and procedures, which will both achieve greater MDA and 

minimize any regulatory burden. 

Mr. LANDRY. Because I am having a bigger problem with foreignflagged vessels, OK, entering our ports and basically providing 

services in the Gulf of Mexico in a clear violation of the Jones Act. 

And so we have foreign-flagged vessels that if they have an AIS 

system and they turn it off, the Coast Guard just says don’t do 

that, but then when our supply vessels would fail to comply with 

NOA, they would be fined. And so we basically, in my opinion, are 

placing a greater burden on our domestic fleet than we are placing 

on our foreign fleet. And yet I thought that these regulations and 

this rulemaking were made to try to get a grip on exactly who is 

coming in and out of the ports. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Yes, sir, that is the reason for the rulemaking, is for awareness of coming in and out of the ports. 

With respect to specific actions that have been taken with respect to U.S.-flagged versus foreign-flagged, I would be happy to 

look into some specific concerns you have. I am not aware of those 

instances that you refer to. 

But the purpose behind AIS is specifically to understand—or the 

requirement for carriage of AIS is to understand who is operating, 

how they are operating, and where they are operating. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, but the problem is, as I see it, we are putting 

a bigger burden on our domestic fleet while we are letting the foreign vessels operate really without any penalty. And so the costs 

of doing business by our domestic fleet is raised by your regulations, and basically the cost to that foreign fleet hasn’t changed. So 

then the day rates on the foreign-fleet vessels stay the same, and 

18 

our domestic vessels have to raise their rates. Do you understand? 

You are putting a greater burden on our people. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. I don’t believe that was the intention, sir. 

I would be happy to look into the detail on that. I don’t—I am not 

aware of the fact that the foreign fleet is evading any of the same 

requirements if they are operating coming in and out of U.S. ports. 

Mr. LANDRY. And I appreciate that comment. I really do. Because 

the chairman was so grateful to work with us last year and insert 

language clarifying that Congress never intended NOA to apply to 

domestic vessels, and it passed the House of Representatives. And 

so my question is, do you all feel like the language that the House 

put out, an intent—and clarifying that intent is just something you 

can ignore and continue to move the NOA forward and apply it to 

domestic vessels? 

Admiral NEFFENGER. No, sir. Actually, I pay a lot of attention to 

congressional intent. It is how we can interpret what the law really 

means for us. So I certainly pay attention to the intent of Congress. 

It is one of the questions I ask: What was the intent behind the 

legislation that was passed and how do we meet that intent most 

effectively? 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, we passed that. I would like you to take a 

look at that language if you don’t mind, sir. 

Thank you so very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral NEFFENGER. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, thank you, Mr. Landry. 

Admiral, thank you very much. Good luck. You have got a big job 

to pull this together, and we will look forward to getting back with 

you soon. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 74969.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 74969.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 74969.011
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 74969.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 74969.013
24 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 14 here 74969.014