5282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 62, 66, 101, 110, 117, 118, 

151, 160, 161, 164, and 165 

46 CFR Parts 4 and 148 

[Docket No. USCG–2005–21869] 

RIN 1625–AA99 

Vessel Requirements for Notices of 

Arrival and Departure, and Automatic 

Identification System 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Consistent with statutory 

requirements and provisions, the Coast 

Guard is expanding the applicability of 

notice of arrival (NOA) and automatic 

identification system (AIS) requirements 

to include more commercial vessels. 

This final rule amends the applicability 

of notice of arrival requirements to 

include additional vessels, sets forth a 

mandatory method for electronic 

submission of NOAs, and modifies 

related reporting content, timeframes, 

and procedures. This final rule also 

extends the applicability of AIS 

requirements beyond Vessel Traffic 

Service (VTS) areas to all U.S. navigable 

waters, and requires that additional 

commercial vessels install and use AIS, 

consistent with statutory requirements, 

and in limited cases, the Secretary’s 

discretionary authority. These changes 

will improve navigation safety, enhance 

our ability to identify and track vessels, 

and heighten our overall maritime 

domain awareness (MDA), thus helping 

us address threats to maritime 

transportation safety and security. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

2, 2015, except for amendments to 33 

CFR part 160 which become effective 

April 30, 2015, with the further 

exception of § 160.204(a)(6), which is 

effective April 30, 2015 through 

December 31, 2015; and except for 

§§ 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, 160.208(a) 

and (c), and 164.46(b) and (c), which 

contain collection of information 

requirements that have not yet been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The Coast Guard 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of these four collection-of-information 

related sections. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the final rule is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register on 

March 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2005–21869 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2005–21869 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on the NOA portion 

of this final rule, call or email 

Lieutenant Commander Michael 

Lendvay, Office of Commercial Vessel 

Compliance (CG–CVC), Coast Guard; 

telephone 202–372–1218, email 

Michael.D.Lendvay@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on the AIS portion of 

this final rule, call or email Mr. Jorge 

Arroyo, Office of Navigation Systems 

(CG–NAV–2), Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1563, email Jorge.Arroyo@

uscg.mil. Finally, if you have questions 

on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Executive Summary and Regulatory 

History 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose and Authority 

2. Overview of the Final Rule 

3. Costs and Benefits 

B. Regulatory History 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Background 

V. Summary of Changes From NPRM 

VI. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

A. Notice of Arrival and Departure 

1. Applicability 

2. Definitions 

3. Exemptions 

4. NOA Information 

5. NOD Information 

6. Electronic Submission 

7. When To Submit an NOA 

8. When To Submit an NOD 

9. Force Majeure 

10. Need for NOAD Data and Agency 

Collaboration in Obtaining It 

11. Scope and Scale 

12. Financial Impact 

13. Outer Continental Shelf 

14. Miscellaneous 

B. Automatic Identification System 

1. Applicability 

2. Broader Use of AIS 

3. Expanding AIS Carriage 

4. Impracticability 

5. AIS and Nationwide AIS 

6. Fishing Industry Concerns 

7. AIS Class B 

8. AIS Displays and Integration 

9. Installation Period 

10. AIS Pilot Plug 

11. Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

C. Regulatory Analysis and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. Notice of Arrival and Departure 

2. Automatic Identification System 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

List of Tables 

Table 1—NOAD Derivation and 

Comparison Table: Final Rule and 

Corresponding Current Applicability or 

Exemption Paragraphs in 33 CFR Part 

160 

Table 2—AIS Derivation and Comparison 

Table: Final Rule and Corresponding 

Current Applicability Paragraphs in 33 

CFR 164.46 

Table 3—Comparison of Regulatory Impact 

Changes Between NPRM and Final Rule 

Table 4—AIS Carriage Costs and Benefits 

Table 5—NOAD Derivation and 

Comparison Table: Final Rule and NPRM 

Applicability and Exemption Paragraphs 

in 33 CFR Part 160 

Table 6—AIS Derivation and Comparison 

Table: Final Rule and NPRM 

Applicability Paragraphs in 33 CFR 

164.46 

Table 7—Cost per Small Entity To Carry 

Three AIS Units and Submit Three 

Additional NOAD Fields 

Table 8—Annual Risk Reduction Required 

for Cost to Equal Benefits for Passenger 

Vessels With Certain Passenger 

Capacities (Annual Costs at 7% Discount 

Rate) 

Table 9—Nature of Authority To Require 

Installation and Use of Automatic 

Identification System (AIS) 

I. Abbreviations 

AC Alternating Current 

AIS Automatic Identification System 

AIS AtoN Automatic Identification System 

Aids to Navigation 

AMS Automated Manifest System 

ANF Advance Notice Form 

API American Petroleum Institute 

APIS Advance Passenger Information 

System 

ASM Application-specific messaging 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

AtoN Aids to Navigation 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CDC Certain Dangerous Cargo 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMTS Committee on the Maritime 

Transportation System 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5283 

COP Common Operating Picture 

COTP Captain of the Port 

CSR Continuous Synopsis Record 

DGPS Differential Global Positioning 

System 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 

ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and 

Information System 

ECS Electronic Chart System 

eNOAD Electronic Notice of Arrival and 

Departure 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FILS Federal/Industry Logistics 

Standardization 

FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

INS mmigration and Naturalization Service 

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

IRVMC Inland River Vessel Movement 

Center 

ISM International Safety Management 

ISPS International Ship and Port Facility 

Security 

ISSC International Ship Security Certificate 

ITU International Telecommunications 

Union 

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

LRIT Long Range Identification and 

Tracking 

MARPOL International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

MARSEC Maritime Security 

MDA Maritime Domain Awareness 

MEPC IMO Marine Environment Protection 

Committee 

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and 

Law Enforcement 

MKD Minimal Keyboard Display 

MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identity 

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit 

MTSA Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAIS Nationwide Automatic Identification 

System 

NARA National Archives and Records 

Administration 

NAVSAC Navigation Safety Advisory 

Council 

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association 

NMEA National Marine Electronics 

Association 

NOA Notice of Arrival 

NOA OCS Notice of Arrival on the Outer 

Continental Shelf 

NOAD Notice of Arrival and Departure 

NOD Notice of Departure 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

N–RAT National Risk Assessment Tool 

NVMC National Vessel Movement Center 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSRV Oil Spill Response Vessel 

OSV Offshore Supply Vessel 

PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

RA Regulatory Analysis 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RTCM Radio Technical Commission for 

Maritime Services 

§ Section 

SAFE Port Act Security and Accountability 

for Every Port Act of 2006 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SN/Circ. (IMO) Safety of Navigation 

Circular 

SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

SOLAS International Convention for the 

Safety of Life at Sea 

TWIC Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential 

ULC Universal Location Code 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VMRS Vessel Movement Reporting System 

VSL Value of Statistical Life 

VTC Vessel Traffic Center 

VTS Vessel Traffic Service 

WDR Waste Delivery Receipt 

WMD Weapon of Mass Destruction 

WME Weapon of Mass Effect 

II. Executive Summary and Regulatory 

History 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose and Authority 

The Coast Guard is expanding the 

applicability of notice of arrival (NOA) 

and automatic identification system 

(AIS) requirements to include more 

commercial vessels, consistent with 

statutory requirements and provisions. 

The Coast Guard is finalizing a narrow 

expansion of the applicability beyond 

the Congressionally-mandated 

requirements using the Secretary’s 

discretionary authority. The purpose of 

these changes is to improve navigation 

safety, enhance the Coast Guard’s ability 

to identify and track vessels, and 

heighten the Coast Guard’s overall 

situational and maritime domain 

awareness (MDA), which will enhance 

mariner’s navigation safety and the 

Coast Guard’s ability to address threats 

to maritime transportation security. 

The authority for the Coast Guard to 

issue AIS and NOA requirements stems 

from the Ports and Waterways Safety 

Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), 

which allows the Secretary to require 

the installation of specified navigation 

and communications equipment on 

vessels that operate within a vessel 

traffic service (VTS) area, pre-arrival 

notices, and other measures to protect 

navigation and the marine environment. 

The authority for the Coast Guard to 

issue AIS-related requirements also 

comes from the Maritime Transportation 

Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), Public 

Law 107–295, which directs that AIS be 

required on certain commercial vessels 

operating on U.S. navigable waters. See 

specifically, 46 U.S.C. 70114. 

2. Overview of the Final Rule 

This final rule amends the 

applicability of notice of arrival (NOA) 

requirements to include additional 

vessels (commercial vessels 300 gross 

tons or less coming from a foreign port 

or place), sets forth a mandatory method 

for electronic NOAD submission, and 

modifies related reporting content, 

timeframes, and procedures. This final 

rule also extends the applicability of 

AIS requirements beyond VTS areas—to 

all U.S. navigable waters—and to nonVTS users. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

The cost of this final rule will be 

borne by approximately 18,000 U.S.-flag 

and foreign-flag vessel owners or 

operators. We estimate the total 

discounted cost of the final rule to be 

$46.1 million over the 10-year period of 

analysis at a 7-percent discount rate, 

and we estimate that 98 percent of this 

cost will be borne by U.S. vessels 

owners and operators. The NOA burden 

on industry from this rule was 

minimized to the maximum extent 

possible and includes three new 

information fields, consistent with the 

objectives of this rule. No new 

government resources are needed to 

process the NOA information or AISrelated requirements of this rule. The 

AIS-related requirements of this rule 

were not applied to low risk, smaller 

vessels. Based on current estimates of 

the risks and benefits, expanding AIS 

installation requirements is not justified 

for smaller vessels that are not moving 

certain dangerous cargo (CDC) or 

flammable or combustible liquid cargo 

in bulk. 

We expect benefits of this final rule to 

include improved security, safety and 

environmental protection. The Coast 

Guard believes that this final rule will 

enhance maritime and navigational 

safety through a synergistic effect of 

NOA and AIS, and will strengthen 

maritime security. Specifically, when 

reliable NOA data is combined with 

other data from sources such as AIS and 

long-range identification and tracking 

(LRIT) reporting, a common operating 

picture is formed in which vesselspecific movements to, from, or in U.S. 

ports and waterways can be monitored 

in near-real time. This will enable the 

Coast Guard to filter data from 

collection mechanisms that do not 

require vessel compliance, such as 

radar, and thereby enhance our ability 

to rapidly detect, identify, and track 

suspicious vessels. This assists the 

Coast Guard and our other interagency 

partners in decision-making regarding 

homeland security, and affords 

decision-makers an opportunity to 

prioritize resources and meet mission 

requirements while maintaining MDA. 

Improving MDA will also result in 

improvements to maritime and 

navigational safety. We assess 

additional improvements to safety and 

environmental protection quantitatively, 

given the existence of historic casualty 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

data from which to develop such 

estimates. From the casualty history we 

can assess the mitigation of fatalities, 

injuries, property damage, and 

environmental impacts as a result of oil 

spills from casualty incidents. We 

estimate the total discounted benefit 

(injuries and fatalities avoided) for the 

AIS portion of the final rule, derived 

from marine casualty cases for the 

period 1996 to 2010, to be between 

$25.1 and $31.2 million, using $9.1 

million for the value of statistical life 

(VSL) at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, 

respectively. We expect the AIS portion 

of this final rule to prevent on average 

14 barrels of oil (undiscounted) from 

being spilled annually, or between 85 

and 106 barrels at 7- and 3-percent 

discount rates, respectively, over the 10- 

year period of analysis. 

B. Regulatory History 

On December 16, 2008, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) titled ‘‘Vessel Requirements for 

Notices of Arrival and Departure, and 

Automatic Identification System’’ in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 76295). The 

preamble of that NPRM contains an 

extensive post-September 11, 2001, 

history of NOA and AIS regulatory 

actions. We provided a 4-month 

comment period for the proposed rule. 

We received 91 written submissions, 

and 27 persons made oral statements at 

our public meetings. There were 

approximately 475 comments in 

response to our NPRM. 

Public meetings were requested and 

two were held. We held the first 

meeting in Washington, DC, on March 5, 

2009, and the second in Seattle, WA, on 

March 25, 2009. See 74 FR 3534, 

January 21, 2009, and 74 FR 9071, 

March 2, 2009. 

III. Basis and Purpose 

This final rule makes revisions to 

NOAD regulations in 33 CFR part 160 

that are necessary to require the 

submission of comprehensive and 

timely information on vessels entering 

U.S. ports and transiting U.S. waters. 

Also, the revision requiring electronic 

submissions will expedite processing of 

NOAD information. Prompt receipt of 

this information about a vessel and its 

voyage, cargo, and persons on board, 

and the operational condition of its 

navigation equipment will assist us in— 

• Preventing damage to structures on, 

in, or adjacent to the navigable waters 

of the United States; and 

• Protecting those navigable waters. 

The Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security has delegated to the 

Coast Guard authority from the PWSA 

(33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.). Under this 

authority, the Coast Guard may 

promulgate regulations to— 

• Require receipt of pre-arrival 

messages from vessels destined for a 

U.S. port or place in sufficient time to 

permit advance vessel traffic planning 

prior to port entry. 

• Protect the navigable waters of the 

United States, as well as bridges over 

those waters, and land structures and 

shore area immediately adjacent to such 

waters, including measures involving 

the movement of explosives or other 

dangerous articles and substances. 

See specifically 33 U.S.C. 1223(a)(5), 

1225, and 1231. 

This final rule also amends AIS and 

AIS-related regulations in 33 CFR parts 

62, 66, 161, 164, and 165 necessary to 

implement section 102 of MTSA, Public 

Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064, which 

directs that AIS be installed and 

operating on most commercial vessels 

on the navigable waters of the United 

States. See 46 U.S.C. 70114. In addition, 

this final rule implements certain 

mandatory provisions of the 

International Convention for the Safety 

of Life at Sea, 1974, (SOLAS), as 

amended. See specifically SOLAS, 

Chapter V, regulation 19.2.4, which 

requires all ships of 300 gross tonnage 

and upwards engaged on international 

voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross 

tonnage and upwards not engaged on 

international voyages, and passenger 

ships irrespective of size, to be fitted 

with AIS; and regulation 1.4, which 

gives the United States some discretion 

in implementing these AIS requirements 

for ships. As a Contracting Government 

to SOLAS, the United States has a 

responsibility to implement mandatory 

SOLAS provisions such as these AIS, 

SOLAS Chapter V provisions. See 

SOLAS Art. I, SOLAS, 32 U.S.T. 47, and 

the Protocol of 1978 relating to SOLAS, 

32 U.S.T. 5577. As with NOAD data, 

AIS data also assist us in traffic 

management, safety, and security. 

The combination of these NOA and 

AIS revisions will help provide a more 

comprehensive picture of the maritime 

domain. These NOA and AIS data go 

into a common operating picture (COP) 

that uses input from various sources to 

provide both a visual display of marine 

traffic and a display of each vessel’s 

accompanying information. This system 

allows us to detect anomalies in these 

data elements. Specifically, NOA 

provides the stated intent of the vessel, 

which AIS complements by providing 

actual movement and a historical 

pattern of behavior. Combining the two, 

along with non-cooperative means of 

detection/tracking, provides a check on 

both, and thus an early indication of 

abnormal behavior, hazardous situations 

and/or potential security incidents. 

IV. Background 

The NOA- and AIS-specific 

regulations appear in 33 CFR part 160 

subpart C and § 164.46, respectively. 

AIS-related regulations appear in 33 

CFR parts 62, 66, 161, and 165. As 

noted, the preamble of the NPRM 

published December 16, 2008, contains 

an extensive post-September 11, 2001, 

history of NOA and AIS regulatory 

actions. See 73 FR 76298–76300. 

V. Summary of Changes From NPRM 

We made changes from the proposed 

rule to reduce the burden of the final 

rule, to more closely align it with 

statutory requirements, to make it more 

effective, and to clarify it. We made 

many of these changes in response to 

public comments, which we discuss in 

Section VI, ‘‘Discussion of Comments 

and Changes.’’ If the rationale for the 

change appears in Section VI, then we 

point to the specific location of that 

response in this Section V summary. 

Otherwise, we provide the rationale for 

the change by section number here in 

this summary of NPRM-to-final-rule 

changes. 

• We added a section to 33 CFR part 

62 and amended two sections in part 66 

to address a comment requesting that 

we expand AIS carriage to offshore fixed 

structures. In our NPRM, we encouraged 

broader use of AIS, but this comment 

highlighted a particular shortcoming 

regarding offshore fixed structures. Our 

proposed rule addressed mobile 

shipboard devices such as AIS Class A 

or B, but not offshore structures or AIS 

Aids to Navigation (AIS AtoN) systems 

which are best suited for fixed position 

deployment, such as on offshore oil 

platforms. Existing AtoN regulations 

(see 33 CFR 66.01–1 Basic Provisions) 

bar the use of AIS as a Private Aid to 

Navigation, and thus preclude the use of 

an AIS AtoN on certain fixed structures. 

This prohibition in the current AtoN 

regulations is inconsistent with our 

stated objective of broadening the use of 

AIS. An AIS AtoN would provide 

position, name, and health status of the 

aid, such as ‘‘on station, watching 

properly.’’ These amendments to parts 

62 and 66, which allow for enhanced 

MDA and improved navigation safety, 

would not require anyone subject to our 

rule to establish an AIS AtoN, they 

would merely make that option 

available. 

• We amended 33 CFR 118.120 for 

the same reasons we amended part 66, 

to allow the use of an AIS AtoN on 

certain fixed structures, here 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5285 

specifically bridges. We added the 

following sentence to § 118.120: The 

District Commander may authorize the 

use of Automatic Identification System 

Aids to Navigation in lieu of or in 

addition to a racon. 

• We removed a technical 

amendment to § 160.5(d) because that 

change was implemented in a separate 

rulemaking, ‘‘Navigation and Navigable 

Waters; Technical, Organizational, and 

Conforming Amendments,’’ in 2010. See 

75 FR 36273, 36287, June 25, 2010. 

• In the NOA General section, 

§ 160.201, we inserted a note to inform 

readers that notice-of-arrival 

requirements for the U.S. Outer 

Continental Shelf appear in 33 CFR part 

146. 

• In the NOA Definitions section, 

§ 160.202, we made five changes. First, 

we removed the definition for the word 

‘‘disembark’’ because we no longer use 

that term in our NOAD regulations. 

Second, in part because Sec. 617 of the 

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–281) amended the 46 

U.S.C. 2101(19) definition of ‘‘offshore 

supply vessel’’ after our NPRM was 

published, we deleted this proposed 

definition and five others we proposed 

(‘‘commercial service,’’ ‘‘oil spill 

response vessel,’’ ‘‘passenger vessel,’’ 

‘‘recreational vessel,’’ and ‘‘towing 

vessel’’) that appear in 46 U.S.C. 2101. 

Inserting 46 U.S.C. 2101 definitions in 

the CFR may make it easier for CFR 

readers to find the definition of a term 

used in part 160, but as this recent 

legislation demonstrates, by inserting 

these statutory definitions, we create the 

potential for conflicting definitions. 

With the recent availability of an online 

official source of the U.S. Code (see 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/

home.action), access to 46 U.S.C. 2101 

is not as limited as when we proposed 

our definition section. Our introductory 

text in § 160.202 pointing to 46 U.S.C. 

2101, combined with a new online 

source for that authority, will make it 

easy to find the 46 U.S.C. 2101 

definitions we have not separately 

included in § 160.202. Third, rather 

than use a jurisdictional term not found 

in 33 CFR part 2, we did not add a 

definition of ‘‘Continental United 

States’’ as proposed, but instead 

specified those jurisdictions in the 

sections in which we proposed to use 

that term: §§ 160.204(a)(5)(iii) and 

160.212(a)(2) and (b)(2). Fourth, to 

address public comments, we added 

definitions for the following terms that 

we did not propose to add in the NPRM 

and that are not defined in 46 U.S.C. 

2101: ‘‘ferry schedule’’ and ‘‘Operating 

exclusively within a single Captain of 

the Port zone.’’ For a discussion of these 

two definitions, see the ‘‘Exemptions’’ 

discussion in VI.A.3. Fifth, we added a 

definition of the term ‘‘boundary 

waters’’ that we use in a new § 160.212 

paragraph on when to submit an NOA. 

• In the NOA Applicability section, 

§ 160.203, we specified in paragraph (a) 

that the referenced ports and places 

were those within the navigable waters 

of the United States or any deepwater 

port as defined in 33 CFR 148.5 and 

otherwise clarified that paragraph. For 

our rationale, see the ‘‘Applicability’’ 

discussion in VI.A.1. 

• We revised the NOA Exemptions 

and exceptions section, § 160.204, to 

address public comments by adding to 

the list of exempted or excepted vessels 

United States- or Canadian-flag vessels 

engaged in certain salvage operations 

and certain ferries on fixed routes. We 

also added the requirements each such 

vessel must meet to qualify for the 

exemption or exception. In response to 

a suspension of reporting requirements 

under regulated navigation area 

requirements in §§ 165.830 and 165.921 

until December 31, 2015, we revised 

exemption (a)(3), which cited to those 

reporting requirements, and added a 

temporary exemption in paragraph 

(a)(6). For our rationale, see 

‘‘Miscellaneous’’ discussion in VI.A.14. 

Also, we revised the heading of this 

section to better reflect that paragraphs 

(b) and (c) identify exceptions and for 

clarification, we replaced ‘‘need not’’ 

with ‘‘is not required to’’ in those two 

paragraphs. And in paragraph (a)(5)(vii), 

we excluded ferries on fixed routes 

provided the ferry operator submits an 

accurate schedule, along with 

information in paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(A)– 

(J), to the Captain of the Port for each 

port or place of destination listed in the 

schedule at least 24 hours in advance of 

the first date and time of arrival listed 

on the schedule and updates if the 

schedule or other information submitted 

changes. For our rationale, see 

‘‘Exemptions’’ discussion in VI.A.3. 

• Based on comments, in the 

Information required in an NOA 

section, § 160.206, we did not include 

the proposed entrance-to-the-port field, 

Table 160.206(2)(xi); crewmember 

passport country of issuance and 

passport date of expiration fields, Table 

160.206(4)(v) & (vi); or the person in 

addition to crew passport country of 

issuance and passport date of expiration 

fields, Table 160.206(5)(v) & (vi), in this 

final rule. For our rationale, see the 

‘‘NOA Information’’ discussion in 

VI.A.4. In this section, we also made 

non-substantive edits for clarity. 

Effective October 30, 2013, a Nontank 

Vessel Response Plans and Other 

Response Plan Requirements final rule 

(78 FR 60135, Sept. 30, 2013) added 

another field to § 160.206, in Table 

160.206: USCG Vessel Response Plan 

Control Number, if applicable. We 

included that field in our revision of 

§ 160.206. 

• We delete the Information required 

in an NOD section, § 160.207, based on 

our decision not to require notices of 

departure. For our rationale, see the 

‘‘When to Submit an NOD’’ discussion 

in VI.A.8. We made appropriate edits 

throughout the regulatory text to reflect 

our removal of the NOD requirement, 

including the removal of § 160.213. 

• In the Methods for submitting an 

NOA section, § 160.210, in paragraph 

(a), we specify that the methods for 

submitting an NOA include both 

currently available options, and 

methods that may be made available on 

http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov in the future. 

This change ensures that current 

options described in this final rule will 

still satisfy submission method 

requirements even if new options are 

later made available on http://

www.nvmc.uscg.gov. We clarified 

paragraph (b) of § 160.210 by 

eliminating the restricting eNOADapplication reference when identifying 

allowable methods for submitting 

NOAs. The eNOAD application 

provides an easy-to-use, efficient 

method for reporting the vessel arrival 

or departure information required by the 

Coast Guard or some other Federal 

agencies for vessels bound for or 

departing from U.S. ports. It was 

developed to enable an NOA or NOA 

update to be submitted directly to the 

NVMC via the Internet even while the 

vessel is underway, thereby avoiding 

the need for fax machines, scanners, and 

telephones. It provides a means for 

managing and storing recently 

submitted NOA data, and allows a 

previously submitted NOA to be 

updated and a partially completed NOA 

to be saved and submitted at a later 

time. These eNOAD application features 

make completing and submitting 

subsequent NOAs faster and easier, but 

this final rule makes clear that the Coast 

Guard will continue to accept other 

electronic methods of submission, such 

as emailing an XML spreadsheet to 

enoad@nvmc.uscg.gov. As discussed in 

VI.A.12, we amended § 160.210(a) to 

provide the option for a vessel operator 

who does not have shore-side support 

available to fax or phone in an NOA or 

an update, for a vessel in an area 

without internet access or when 

experiencing technical difficulties with 

an onboard computer. 

• We revised the When to submit an 

NOA section, § 160.212, to adjust, in 

paragraph (a)(3), when NOA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

submissions would be required for 

Canadian-flag vessels less than 300 

gross tons arriving directly from Canada 

via boundary waters in response to 

provisions of the Treaty between the 

United States and Great Britain relating 

to boundary waters between the United 

States and Canada (Boundary Waters 

Treaty), 36 Stat. 2448; Treaty Series 548. 

(For a discussion of comments related to 

this treaty’s provisions, see ‘‘When to 

submit an NOA’’ discussion in VI.A.7; 

also see the ‘‘Exemptions’’ discussion of 

this treaty in VI.A.3). Also, we inserted 

‘‘Times for submitting NOAs are as 

follows’’ as introductory text for 

paragraph (a)(4) to conform with the 

introductory text of paragraph (b)(4). 

• In response to comments on the 

When to submit an NOD section, 

§ 160.213, we decided to eliminate our 

proposed NOD requirement and to 

remove § 160.213 . We determined that 

NOA submission requirements would 

provide sufficient information. For our 

rationale, see the ‘‘When to Submit an 

NOD’’ discussion in VI.A.8. 

• In the Vessel operating 

requirements section, § 161.12, we 

corrected a section reference from 

‘‘§ 160.203’’ to ‘‘§ 160.202.’’ We also 

made similar conforming amendments 

to reflect the redesignation of our 

definitions section to § 160.202 in: 33 

CFR 101.105, 110.158, 110.168, 110.214, 

117.1007, 151.2025, 161.12, 161.19, 

165.503, 165.510, 165.753, 165.811, 

165.830, 165.921, 165.1181, 165.1183, 

and 46 CFR 4.05–1 and 148.11. Also as 

a conforming amendment in a note to 

table 161.12(c) in § 161.12, we removed 

a reference to § 164.46 requirements 

applying to certain VTS and Vessel 

Movement Reporting System (VMRS) 

areas because our amendment to 

§ 164.46 in this final rule expands AIS 

applicability beyond VTS and VMRS 

areas. 

• In the Applicability exception for 

foreign vessels section, § 164.02, we 

inserted the word ‘‘foreign’’ into 

paragraph (a) to clarify that, except 

where noted, the requirements of this 

part do not apply to foreign vessels that 

meet the criteria listed in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (a)(2) of that section. 

• In the Incorporation by reference 

section, § 164.03, for reasons stated in 

the description of § 164.46(a) changes 

immediately below, we added IMO 

Safety of Navigation Circular SN.1/

Circ.289, regarding ‘‘Guidance on the 

Use of AIS Application-Specific 

Messages;’’ deleted SN/Circ.236, which 

SN.1/Circ.289 revoked; and added 

National Marine Electronics Association 

(NMEA) Installation Standard 0400– 

3.10. We also updated and 

supplemented contact information for 

organizations listed in this section. 

• In the Automatic Identification 

System section, § 164.46, we made the 

following revisions: 

Æ In paragraph (a), Definitions, we 

revised the definition for ‘‘Properly 

installed, operational’’ by adding 

International Maritime Organization 

Safety of Navigation Circular 289, 

deleting Circular 236, and adding the 

National Marine Electronics Association 

(NMEA) Installation Standard 0400– 

3.10. The IMO Maritime Safety 

Committee approved SN.1/Circ.289 after 

publication of our NPRM. This new 

circular revises two application specific 

messages denoted in IMO SN/Circ.236, 

revokes five others, and, adds 14 new 

applications. As noted below in our 

‘‘Broader Use of AIS’’ discussion in 

VI.B.2, the applications added by SN.1/ 

Circ.289 will broadly expand the 

capability and use of AIS. SN.1/Circ.289 

revoked SN/Circ.236 effective January 1, 

2013. Based on a comment, we added 

NMEA Installation Standard 0400–3.10 

as an option to comply with it in lieu 

of SN/Circ.227 and 245 because the IMO 

AIS requirements and guidelines were 

tailored to large deep-draft seagoing 

vessels and may be impractical for the 

majority of small and shallow-draft 

vessels subject to this rule. An example 

of an impracticality created by IMO AIS 

requirements would be a 27-foot vessel 

attempting to maintain a 30-foot 

separation between radio antennas on 

board. For our response to the comment, 

see the ‘‘Impracticability’’ discussion in 

VI.B.4. 

Æ In response to comments, in 

paragraph (b), AIS carriage, we specified 

a Coast Guard type-approved AIS Class 

A device as the standard for meeting the 

carriage requirement (for our rationale, 

see ‘‘AIS Class B’’ discussion in VI.B.7); 

we redesignated paragraphs (b)(1)–(5) as 

(b)(1)(i)–(v) to facilitate our addition of 

paragraph (b)(2) that lists vessels we 

determined may use a Coast Guard typeapproved AIS Class B device to satisfy 

the carriage requirement (for our 

rationale, see ‘‘AIS Class B’’ discussion 

in VI.B.7); we revised the applicability 

criteria for vessels carrying passengers 

by setting a higher general threshold 

than we had proposed—those carrying 

more than 150 passengers (instead of 

more than 50)—and by not adopting our 

proposed inclusion of vessels carrying 

more than 12 passengers for hire and 

capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots 

(for our rationale, see ‘‘Applicability’’ 

and ‘‘Broader Use of AIS’’ discussions 

in VI.B.1 and VI.B.2); and we 

supplemented the vessels-movingcertain-dangerous-cargo applicability 

paragraph to ensure that vessels 

carrying or moving propane and 

gasoline as cargo are also required to use 

AIS (for our rationale, see ‘‘Definitions’’ 

discussion in VI.A.2 and 

‘‘Applicability’’ and ‘‘Expanding AIS 

Carriage’’ discussions in VI.B.1 and 

VI.B.3). To be consistent in our 

terminology, we changed ‘‘engaged in 

commercial towing’’ in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) that expressly covers towing 

vessels to ‘‘engaged in commercial 

service,’’ and in paragraph (b)(1)(v) we 

deleted the ‘‘es’’ from ‘‘cargoes’’ to 

match the term we point to as being 

defined in 33 CFR part 160 subpart C, 

‘‘certain dangerous cargo.’’ We also 

replaced the content of the 

informational note to paragraph (b), 

which discussed AIS Class B devices, 

with information regarding a Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port’s (COTP’s) 

authority under 33 U.S.C. 1223(b)(3) 

and 33 CFR 160.111 to restrict the 

operation of a vessel if he or she 

determines that, by reason of weather, 

visibility, sea conditions, port 

congestion, other hazardous 

circumstances, or the condition of such 

vessel, the restriction is justified in the 

interest of safety. 

Æ In paragraph (c), SOLAS provisions, 

we included the titles of Chapter V 

regulations 19.2.1.6, 19.2.3.5, and 

19.2.5.1 (‘‘Positioning System,’’ 

‘‘Transmitting Heading Device,’’ and 

‘‘Gyro Compass,’’ respectively) to make 

it easier for the reader to identity the 

subject matter of the SOLAS regulation 

listed. We also removed paragraph (c)(1) 

because the vessels we intended to 

cover with it that do not engage on 

international voyages are covered by 

§ 164.46(b)(1) and those that do are 

covered by both § 164.46(b)(1) and 

proposed § 164.46(c)(2), which we 

redesignated as (c)(1) in this final rule. 

Æ Within paragraph (d), Operations— 

D In (d)(1), we replaced ‘‘33 U.S.C. 

2001 through 2073’’ with ‘‘33 CFR part 

83,’’ because 33 U.S.C. 2001–2038 have 

been repealed, and the inland 

navigation rules are now contained in 

33 CFR part 83. See Sec. 303 of Public 

Law 108–293, and 75 FR 19544, April 

15, 2010; 

D In (d)(2)(i), we removed the 

unnecessary phrase ‘‘should the need 

arise’’ and restructured this paragraph 

regarding the ability to reinitialize AIS 

so that it was easier to understand; 

D In (d)(2)(iv), we added the word 

‘‘fields’’ to identify AIS data that must 

be accurately inputted; 

D In (d)(2)(v), we limited the 

applicability of the paragraph to vessels 

subject to § 164.46 (b) to distinguish 

SOLAS based-requirements applicable 

to vessels subject to paragraph (c); in 

response to comments (see 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5287 

‘‘Impracticability’’ discussion in VI.B.4), 

we added the words ‘‘and at least 15 

minutes prior to getting underway if the 

vessel is’’ to limit the time AIS must be 

in continual operation on moored 

vessels; and, lastly, we condensed the 

discussion of AIS being turned off when 

continual operation would compromise 

safety or a security incident is 

imminent; 

D In (d)(3), we made minor edits to 

more clearly distinguish safety-related 

AIS text messaging from AIS 

application-specific messaging; 

D We added paragraph (d)(4) to 

address the emerging use of AIS ASM— 

and to further distinguish AIS ASM 

from AIS text messaging—by stating that 

AIS application-specific messages are 

permissible, but are limited to no more 

than one per minute and to messages 

consistent with international standards 

and registered for use in the United 

States or Canada; and 

D In the note to paragraph (d), we 

inserted a reference to, and World Wide 

Web address for, the ‘‘U.S. AIS 

Encoding Guide’’ to help AIS users 

encode (input) consistent and accurate 

data; we deleted the sentence referring 

to external positioning systems and 

amended the word ‘integration’ to the 

more proper term ‘interfacing’; current 

AIS does not require further integration 

for its operation. We also added the 

sentence ‘‘Most application-specific 

messages require interfacing to an 

external system that is capable of their 

portrayal, such as equipment certified to 

meet Radio Technical Commission for 

Maritime Services (RTCM) standard 

10900 series’’ to provide useful 

information to those planning to use 

AIS ASM. 

Æ In paragraphs (e), Watchkeeping, 

and (f), Portable AIS, we made minor 

edits for clarification. 

Æ In response to comments, in 

paragraph (g), Pilot Port, we replaced 

the term ‘‘Pilot Port’’ with the more 

specific term ‘‘AIS Pilot Plug;’’ added 

‘‘by other than the vessel Master and 

crew’’ to qualify the subject-to-pilotagebased applicability of this paragraph; 

added ‘‘and permanently affixed (not an 

extension cord) and adjacent’’ to clarify 

positioning of the AIS Pilot Plug; and 

inserted a reference to NEMA 5–15 as an 

example of a 120-volt 50/60 Hz AC 

power receptacle. 

Æ In response to comments, in 

paragraph (h), Exceptions, we increased 

the possible maximum duration of a 

deviation from 1 year to 5 years (for our 

rationale, see the ‘‘Broader Use of AIS’’ 

discussion in VI.B.2); inserted examples 

to supplement our description of types 

of vessels that may seek a deviation 

from AIS requirements; added vessels 

whose design or construction makes it 

impracticable to operate an AIS device 

(e.g., a submersible); and added those 

vessels using an AIS Class B device that 

lacks a display as a possible candidate 

for a deviation from AIS requirements in 

paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (e). 

Æ We redesignated paragraph (i), 

Implementation Date, as paragraph (j), 

and inserted a new paragraph (i), 

Prohibition. In the new 

‘‘Implementation Date’’ paragraph (j) we 

included those vessels identified in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 164.46 in the 

group of vessels that must install AIS no 

later than 13 months after publication of 

this final rule—the NPRM had proposed 

7 months after publication. For our 

rationale, see the ‘‘Installation Period’’ 

discussion in VI.B.9. 

Æ We added new paragraph (i), 

Prohibition, to note there is a 

prohibition of shore-side broadcasts 

from AIS Class A or B devices unless 

such stations are specifically licensed 

(e.g., a marine support station) to do so 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission. Class A and B devices are 

mobile devices not intended for shoreside use; their reporting rate is set by 

speed and course changes and so they 

have a navigation status. Using them 

ashore could confuse mariners on the 

water, who may assume they are mobile 

devices on the water (e.g., coming 

around a bend vice in warehouse 

ashore) and take action accordingly. 

VI. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

As noted above, we received 91 

written submissions to our docket, and 

statements from 27 persons who spoke 

at our public meetings. In total, there 

were approximately 475 comments in 

response to our NPRM. These written 

submissions and summaries of our two 

public meetings are available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking, 

where indicated under ADDRESSES or 

use direct link http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869. 

Below, we summarize these 

comments and any changes we made to 

the regulatory text in response. We 

discuss the NOAD comments first, then 

the AIS comments, and, finally, the 

Regulatory Assessment comments. 

A. Notice of Arrival and Departure 

In the NPRM, we used 11 categories 

to describe our proposed revisions to 

NOA regulations. See 73 FR 76302–03, 

December 16, 2008. We used nine of 

these same categories below to discuss 

comments we received on the NOAD 

portion of the NPRM. We did not 

receive comments on our proposed 

§ 160.205 to clarify who must submit an 

NOAD or on our proposed removal of a 

suspended requirement related to 

Customs Form 1302, so we did not use 

those two categories below. We have 

inserted five additional comment 

discussion categories: Need for NOAD 

Data and Agency Collaboration in 

Obtaining It, Scope and Scale, Financial 

Impact, Outer Continental Shelf, and 

Miscellaneous. Some comments raised 

issues in more than one of these 

categories, so we occasionally return to 

a discussion of a comment. 

1. Applicability 

One commenter recommended that 

we clarify the phrase ‘‘port or place of 

the United States’’ as it pertains to U.S. 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) locations. 

The commenter noted that the Coast 

Guard used the term ‘‘port or place of 

the United States’’ in § 160.203, which 

sets out the applicability of this rule, 

without providing a specific definition. 

They said that the Coast Guard declined 

to define this term as requested by the 

commenter in its August 5, 2002 

submission to the docket (USCG–2002– 

11865–0008) for the ‘‘Automatic 

Identification System; Vessel Carriage 

Requirement’’ rulemaking that produced 

a final rule in 2003. The commenter 

seeks to clarify this term as it pertains 

to a location on the OCS, which can 

become viewed as a ‘‘place in the 

United States’’ when a Mobile Offshore 

Drilling Unit (MODU) is operating on 

location. The commenter notes that the 

Coast Guard’s statement in the 2003 rule 

(68 FR 9537, 9538, Feb. 28, 2003) 

suggests that the Coast Guard may not 

consider a location on OCS to be a U.S. 

port or place. 

The Coast Guard addressed Notice of 

Arrival issues concerning the OCS in a 

January 2011 final rule titled ‘‘Notice of 

Arrival on the Outer Continental Shelf’’ 

(76 FR 2254, January 13, 2011). Based 

on this and similar comments, however, 

and as discussed further below in the 

NOA ‘‘Definitions’’ and ‘‘Outer 

Continental Shelf’’ sections, VI.A.2 and 

VI.A.14, we have revised § 160.203 to 

limit the applicability of regulations in 

33 CFR part 160, subpart C, to vessels 

bound for or departing from U.S. ports 

or places in the navigable waters of the 

United States or deepwater ports. This 

revision is intended to make clear that, 

with the exception of visits to 

deepwater ports, visits to ports or places 

in the OCS are covered by 33 CFR part 

146 and are not covered by this rule. 

We have placed NOA applicability 

and exemption provisions from both the 

final rule and the current CFR adjacent 

to each other in the following derivation 

and comparison table so that you may 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

quickly identify changes this final rule is introducing that may impact your 

vessel or company. 

TABLE 1—NOAD DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND CORRESPONDING CURRENT APPLICABILITY OR

EXEMPTION PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR PART 160 

Final rule section or 

paragraph in 33 CFR 

part 160 

Text 

Corresponding section 

or paragraph currently 

in 33 CFR part 160 

Text 

§ 160.203(a) ................. This subpart applies to the following vessels 

that are bound for or departing from ports 

or places within the navigable waters of the 

United States, as defined in 33 CFR 

2.36(a), which includes internal waters and 

the territorial seas of the United States, 

and any deepwater port as defined in 33 

CFR 148.5: 

(1) U.S. vessels in commercial service, and 

(2) All foreign vessels. 

§ 160.202(a) & (b) ...... (a) This subpart applies to U.S. and foreign 

vessels bound for or departing from ports 

or places in the United States. 

(b) This subpart does not apply to U.S. recreational vessels under 46 U.S.C. 4301 et 

seq., but does apply to foreign recreational 

vessels. 

§ 160.204(a) ................. NO CHANGE IN TEXT FROM CURRENT 

CORRESPONDING CFR PARAGRAPH.

§ 160.203(a) ............... Except for reporting notice of hazardous conditions, the following vessels are exempt 

from requirements in this subpart: 

(1) ......................... A passenger or offshore supply vessel when 

employed in the exploration for or in the removal of oil, gas, or mineral resources on 

the continental shelf.

(1) ........................ Passenger and supply vessels when they are 

employed in the exploration for or in the removal of oil, gas, or mineral resources on 

the continental shelf. 

(2) ......................... An oil spill response vessel (OSRV) when engaged in actual spill response operations 

or during spill response exercises.

(2) ........................ Oil Spill Recovery Vessels (OSRVs) when 

engaged in actual spill response operations 

or during spill response exercises. 

(3) ......................... After December 31, 2015, a vessel required 

by 33 CFR 165.830 or 165.921 to report its 

movements, its cargo, or the cargo in 

barges it is towing.

(3) ........................ (3) Vessels operating upon the following 

waters: 

(i) Mississippi River between its sources and 

mile 235, Above Head of Passes; 

(ii) Tributaries emptying into the Mississippi 

River above mile 235; 

(iii) Atchafalaya River above its junction with 

the Plaquemine-Morgan City alternate waterway and the Red River; and 

(iv) The Tennessee River from its confluence 

with the Ohio River to mile zero on the Mobile River and all other tributaries between 

those two points. 

(4) ......................... A United States or Canadian vessel engaged 

in the salving operations of any property 

wrecked, or rendering aid and assistance 

to any vessels wrecked, disabled, or in distress, in waters specified in Article II of the 

1908 Treaty of Extradition, Wrecking and 

Salvage (35 Stat. 2035; Treaty Series 502).

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(5) ......................... The following vessels neither carrying certain 

dangerous cargo nor controlling another 

vessel carrying certain dangerous cargo.

(b) ............................... If not carrying certain dangerous cargo or 

controlling another vessel carrying certain 

dangerous cargo, the following vessels are 

exempt from NOA requirements in this subpart: 

(i) ................... A foreign vessel 300 gross tons or less not 

engaged in commercial service.

(1) ........................ Vessels 300 gross tons or less, except for 

foreign vessels entering any port or place 

in the Seventh Coast Guard District as described in 33 CFR 3.35–1(b). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5289 

TABLE 1—NOAD DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND CORRESPONDING CURRENT APPLICABILITY OR

EXEMPTION PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR PART 160—Continued 

Final rule section or 

paragraph in 33 CFR 

part 160 

Text 

Corresponding section 

or paragraph currently 

in 33 CFR part 160 

Text 

(ii) .................. A vessel operating exclusively within a single 

Captain of the Port zone. Captain of the 

Port zones are defined in 33 CFR part 3.

(2) ........................ Vessels operating exclusively within a Captain of the Port Zone. 

(iii) ................. A U.S. towing vessel and a U.S. barge operating solely between ports or places of the 

contiguous 48 states, Alaska, and the District of Columbia.

(4) ........................ Towing vessels and barges operating solely 

between ports or places in the continental 

United States. 

(iv) ................. A public vessel ................................................ (5) ........................ Public vessels. 

(v) .................. Except for a tank vessel, a U.S. vessel operating solely between ports or places of the 

United States on the Great Lakes.

(6) ........................ Except for tank vessels, U.S. vessels operating solely between ports or places in the 

United States on the Great Lakes. 

(vi) ................. A U.S. vessel 300 gross tons or less, engaged in commercial service not coming 

from a foreign port or place.

(b)(1) ........................... Vessels 300 gross tons or less, except for 

foreign vessels entering any port or place 

in the Seventh Coast Guard District as described in 33 CFR 3.35–1(b). 

(vii) ................ Each ferry on a fixed route that is described 

in an accurate schedule that is submitted 

by the ferry operator, along with information in paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(A)–(J) of this 

section, to the Captain of the Port for each 

port or place of destination listed in the 

schedule at least 24 hours in advance of 

the first date and time of arrival listed on 

the schedule. At least 24 hours before the 

first date and time of arrival listed on the 

ferry schedule, each ferry operator who 

submits a schedule under paragraph 

(a)(5)(vii) of this section must also provide 

the following information to the Captain of 

the Port for each port or place of destination listed in the schedule for the ferry, and 

if the schedule or the following submitted 

information changes, the ferry operator 

must submit an updated schedule at least 

24 hours in advance of the first date and 

time of arrival listed on the new schedule, 

and updates on the following items whenever the submitted information is no longer 

accurate: 

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(A) Name of the vessel; 

(B) Country of registry of the vessel; 

(C) Call sign of the vessel; 

(D) International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

international number or, if the vessel does 

not have an assigned IMO international 

number, the official number of the vessel; 

(E) Name of the registered owner of the vessel; 

(F) Name of the operator of the vessel; 

(G) Name of the vessel’s classification society or recognized organization, if applicable; 

(H) Each port or place of destination; 

(I) Estimated dates and times of arrivals at 

and departures from these ports or places; 

and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5290 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Our definition of ‘‘commercial service’’ is also 

very similar to CBP’s definition of ‘‘commercial 

vessel’’ in 19 CFR 4.7b(a). 

TABLE 1—NOAD DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND CORRESPONDING CURRENT APPLICABILITY OR

EXEMPTION PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR PART 160—Continued 

Final rule section or 

paragraph in 33 CFR 

part 160 

Text 

Corresponding section 

or paragraph currently 

in 33 CFR part 160 

Text 

(J) Name and telephone number of a 24-hour 

point of contact.

(6) ......................... April 30, 2015 through December 31, 2015, 

vessels identified as being subject to 33 

CFR 165.830 or 165.921.

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

§ 160.215 ..................... When a vessel is bound for a port or place of 

the United States under force majeure, it 

must comply with the requirements in this 

section, but not other sections of this subpart. The vessel must report the following 

information to the nearest Captain of the 

Port as soon as practicable: 

(b)(3) ........................... Vessels arriving at a port or place under 

force majeure. 

(a) The vessel Master’s intentions; 

(b) Any hazardous conditions as defined in 

§ 160.202; and 

(c) If the vessel is carrying certain dangerous 

cargo or controlling a vessel carrying certain dangerous cargo, the amount and 

name of each CDC carried, including cargo 

UN number if applicable.

2. Definitions 

One commenter recommended that 

the definition of ‘‘certain dangerous 

cargo’’ be expanded to include vessels 

carrying propane and gasoline so that 

these vessels would have to use AIS 

under AIS regulations redesignated as 

33 CFR 164.46(b)(1)(v). 

For purposes of NOA regulations, 

there is a definition of certain dangerous 

cargo (CDC) in redesignated § 160.202, 

which is referenced in AIS regulation 33 

CFR 164.46(b)(1)(v). The definition of 

CDC was revised by a separate final rule 

entitled ‘‘Notification of Arrival in U.S. 

Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes’’ (75 

FR 59617, September 28, 2010). We 

address the recommendation that 

vessels moving propane or gasoline as 

cargo be required to use AIS in the AIS 

portion of this final rule preamble 

because we amended redesignated 33 

CFR 164.46(b)(1)(v) in the AIS 

regulations, instead of changing the 

NOA definition of CDC in 33 CFR part 

160, which would have triggered other 

requirements not requested by the 

commenter. 

One commenter who operates youthprogram sailing vessels, recommended 

adding the following sentence to our 

proposed ‘‘commercial service’’ 

definition in § 160.202: ‘‘A vessel in 

which persons on board are sharing 

expenses, with no paid staff and which 

is engaged in youth development of 

character and citizenship shall not be 

considered a commercial vessel.’’ 

We note that our definition for 

‘‘commercial service’’ mirrors the 

definition in 46 U.S.C. 2101 and is 

intended to cover a broad range of 

commercial activities. We did not 

change our definition of commercial 

service based on this comment because 

the suggested revision would 

unnecessarily narrow that definition.1

A youth vessel inspected as a sailing 

school vessel under 46 CFR part 169 

would not be considered to be operating 

in commercial service, and thus would 

not be subject to NOA requirements. But 

the commenter noted that his youthprogram vessels are licensed as Small 

Passenger Vessels under 46 CFR chapter 

I, subchapter T, which would be 

considered vessels engaged in 

commercial service. If these vessels are 

operating exclusively within a single 

COTP zone (see 33 CFR part 3 for a 

description of zones), they likely qualify 

for the exemption in § 160.204(a)(5)(ii). 

Also, under 33 CFR 160.214, the vessel 

owner may request a waiver from NOAD 

requirements from the local COTP. This 

waiver provision allows the COTP to 

make assessments based on factors in 

his or her COTP zone that are difficult 

to account for in a general rule. 

One commenter recommended that 

the current definition of ‘‘operator’’ 

should explicitly state that, for vessels 

subject to SOLAS Chapter IX, the 

operator is the ‘‘company’’ listed on the 

vessel’s Continuous Synopsis Record 

(CSR), International Safety Management 

(ISM) Document of Compliance, and 

Safety Management Certificate. 

We note that the operator will not 

always meet the SOLAS Chapter IX 

definition of ‘‘company.’’ We did not 

propose to change the definition of 

‘‘operator’’ in our NPRM and we did not 

change the definition based on this 

comment because the SOLAS Chapter 

IX, Reg. 1 definition of ‘‘company’’ does 

not limit the owner, organization, or 

person who has assumed responsibility 

for operation of the ship to the 

‘‘company’’ listed on the vessel’s 

Continuous Synopsis Record, ISM 

Document of Compliance, and Safety 

Management Certificate. The unchanged 

definition of ‘‘operator,’’ which appears 

in redesignated § 160.202, identifies the 

‘‘person including, but not limited to, an 

owner, a charterer, or another contractor 

who conducts, or is responsible for, the 

operation of the vessel’’ as the operator. 

One commenter noted that, given the 

availability of dynamic positioning 

systems, the definitions of ‘‘port or 

place of departure’’ and ‘‘port or place 

of destination’’ should be revised to 

capture locations where vessels transfer 

passengers or cargo offshore, even if the 

vessel is not anchored or moored. 

With respect to this final rule, we do 

not agree that we should add the 

offshore transfer of passengers or cargo 

as a factor for either of these definitions. 

This final rule expands the AIS 

requirements to include more vessels; 

therefore, we are increasing our MDA of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5291 

when two or more vessels may be 

engaged in the activities the commenter 

describes. Also, to the extent these 

offshore activities take place in U.S. 

navigable waters, revising these two 

§ 160.202 definitions as suggested 

would create a burden for vessels 

engaged in lightering offshore, and we 

decline to impose such a requirement 

without obtaining comments on the 

suggested revision. Additionally, a 

separate final rule titled ‘‘Notice of 

Arrival on the Outer Continental Shelf’’ 

(76 FR 2254) was published January 13, 

2011, which addressed NOA 

requirements for certain offshore 

activities. 

3. Exemptions 

Commenters gave various reasons 

why ferries should be exempted from 

NOAD requirements: Current CBP 

practices of prescreening passengers in 

Canada and subjecting the vessel to a 

customs inspection when it arrives in 

the United States make Coast Guard 

NOAD requirements redundant and 

unjustifiable; ferries operate on a set 

arrival and departure schedule, so the 

Coast Guard already knows when a ferry 

will arrive; risks associated with prescreened international ferry passengers 

are significantly less than risks 

associated with domestic ferries; under 

the Western Hemisphere Travel 

Initiative, at the United States-Canadian 

border, each person must have a 

passport, United States passport card, or 

certain other limited acceptable official 

documents; collecting and transmitting 

data 60 minutes before departure would 

eliminate a ferry operator’s ability to 

serve last-minute travelers; NOA 

requirements on ferries would impact 

profitability and increase labor costs to 

collect and enter data; ferries that 

operate between different COTP zones, 

even though the ports are nearby, would 

be required to submit excessive daily 

reports even though the government has 

failed to show any heightened risk for 

operating between two COTP zones, 

while another operator transiting as far 

or farther in a single COTP zone would 

not be burdened with high costs of 

submitting 20 NOADs per day; and 

NOA requirements would put ferries at 

a competitive disadvantage with 

alternate choices in travel, such as land 

routes. 

Based on comments received, we have 

added an NOA reporting exemption for 

certain ferries. We recognize that ferries 

are on fixed routes and schedules that 

can result in multiple, predictable visits 

within a 24-hour period to the same 

U.S. port, and that, due to the nature of 

ferry operations, it would be impractical 

to subject ferries to the same NOA 

reporting requirements as other vessels. 

Therefore, in this final rule we exempt 

ferries, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 

2101(10b), that provide certain 

information to COTPs. As discussed 

above, we have not included our 

proposed notice of departure 

requirement in this final rule. 

To qualify for this exemption, the 

ferry operator must submit the schedule 

for the ferry to the COTP for each port 

or place of destination listed in the 

schedule by April 30, 2015, or at least 

24 hours in advance of the first date and 

time of arrival listed on the schedule, in 

addition to other information listed in 

new paragraph § 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 

including a 24-hour contact number. 

This exception more closely aligns with 

the CBP’s exception in 19 CFR 

4.7b(c)(1), which does not require ferries 

to submit either an electronic passenger 

arrival manifest or an electronic crew 

member arrival manifest. Because we 

need to ensure that the Coast Guard’s 41 

COTPs are aware of ferries entering their 

zones, a blanket exemption for ferries 

would not satisfy our need to maintain 

sufficient MDA. 

One commenter requested an 

exemption for fixed-route ferry systems 

and tour operators remaining within 

specific geographic areas less than 1 

nautical mile from land, whose vessels, 

routes, and schedules are established, 

and that this exemption apply to those 

operations (a) that are not on 

international voyages, (b) that do not 

provide overnight accommodations, and 

(c) whose voyages are less than 6 hours 

long. The commenter noted that this last 

provision would benefit those 

operations most impacted by the 

NOAD/AIS requirements: Small ferry 

operators, harbor excursion, and nature 

cruise operators. Also, a commenter 

stated that vessels such as large fish 

tenders make several short duration 

calls in separate COTP zones, triggering 

back-to-back reporting and an undue 

amount of paperwork. 

The final rule contains many 

exemptions that apply in all U.S. 

waters, but there are limits to the use of 

general exemptions. A given set of 

factors, such as those described by the 

first commenter, may not pose a safety 

or security threat in one COTP zone, but 

may in another. For those situations, the 

Coast Guard may issue a waiver under 

§ 160.214 that allows us to make 

assessments at the COTP level to grant 

relief from NOA reporting requirements 

based on factors specific to a given port 

or COTP zone. 

As noted above, since publication of 

the NPRM, we have added an 

exemption for ferries that provide 

certain general information to COTPs. 

First, if the vessels on a fixed route in 

a specific geographic area the 

commenter describes do not meet the 

definition of ‘‘ferry,’’ but operate 

exclusively within one COTP zone and 

do not carry CDC, the vessels would be 

exempt from NOA requirements under 

§ 160.203(a)(5)(ii). Second, if such 

vessels are on a fixed route transiting 

two or more COTP zones, the COTP in 

each of those zones has the discretion to 

grant a waiver under 33 CFR 160.214. 

Similarly, the large fish tenders, 

mentioned in the second comment, that 

make short trips transiting more than 

one COTP zone may request a waiver 

from the COTPs responsible for those 

zones. 

A commenter recommended that, 

rather than requiring an operator to 

submit for renewal annually, a waiver 

should remain in force until a material 

change occurs, such as a change in route 

or character of the navigable waterway. 

This remain-in-force-until-materialchange approach would be similar to 

the EPA Vessel General Permit and the 

state-issued Department of 

Environmental Protection Stormwater 

Runoff Permit automated renewal 

precedent. This change from the 

proposed rule would relieve an operator 

of yet another administrative task, while 

appropriately assigning reporting 

responsibility. 

We note that if a waiver is granted, 

the termination date of that waiver will 

be at the discretion of the COTP. Over 

time, factors that impact security or 

safety may change. Periodic review of 

waivers allows the COTP to determine 

whether continuing a waiver is 

consistent with current security and 

safety assessments and strategy. We did 

not make any changes from the 

proposed rule based on this comment. 

One commenter supports NOA 

requirements for vessels carrying CDC, 

but noted that when conditions make 

such requirements unnecessary, the 

Coast Guard should provide a waiver 

provision. 

We note that § 160.214 provides a 

waiver provision at the COTP’s 

discretion if NOA requirements appear 

to be unnecessary. In addition, force 

majeure provisions in § 160.215 of this 

final rule contain only limited reporting 

requirements under certain conditions 

beyond the control of the ship’s Master. 

As previously noted, a separate final 

rule titled ‘‘Notification of Arrival in 

U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes’’ 

was published September 28, 2010. That 

rule is intended to relieve an 

unnecessary burden on industry by 

including more lower-risk cargoes in the 

CDC residue category, thereby reducing 

the number of notice of arrival 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5292 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

submissions required based on the cargo 

a vessel is carrying. These new CDC and 

CDC-residue definitions currently 

appear in § 160.204, which will be 

redesignated by this final rule as 

§ 160.202. This section redesignation is 

intended to move the definitions closer 

to the beginning of subpart C. We made 

no revisions in response to this waiverprovision comment. 

One commenter stated that NOA 

regulations should not apply to tender 

vessel operations for cruise ships, 

whether performed by ship’s tender or 

by a local vessel hired for this purpose. 

The commenter stated that non-U.S.-flag 

cruise ships arriving at or departing 

from any U.S. port currently must 

submit an NOA, irrespective of whether 

the previous port of departure or entry 

is a U.S. or foreign port, and that these 

notices cover passenger and crew 

manifests; that because the cruise ship 

is already in a U.S. port, the tender 

vessel is neither physically arriving at, 

nor departing from, a foreign port; that 

for CBP purposes, these persons are 

considered to have arrived or departed 

upon arrival or departure of the cruise 

ship itself; that no persons are permitted 

to come ashore unless and until the CBP 

officers have cleared the ship, and that 

further clearance is unnecessary when 

passengers depart the ship to the shore, 

whether departure is facilitated by a 

gangway or by a tendering vessel; that 

these vessels would also appear to be 

exempt from NOA requirements because 

their temporary operations within a port 

occur exclusively within a single COTP 

zone; and that some tendering vessels 

may be exempted or may receive a 

waiver under the limited local area of 

operation, but that exemption may be 

too narrowly defined, because some 

tendering vessels may travel as far as 2 

or 3 miles. 

We have not established a separate 

NOA exemption for tender vessels, but 

under § 160.204(a)(5)(ii), to the extent 

that the operations of tender vessels are 

exclusively within a single COTP zone, 

and the vessel is not carrying CDC, the 

tender vessel would not need to submit 

an NOA. If a tender vessel is carried 

onboard an arriving cruise ship, then a 

separate NOA need not be submitted for 

the tender vessel but if after this arrival 

the tender vessel begins traveling under 

its own power, it would be subject to 

NOAD requirements unless it fits into 

an NOAD exemption. In situations 

where a local tender vessel services one 

or more cruise ships, as long as it 

operates exclusively in a single COTP 

zone and is not carrying CDC, the tender 

vessel would be exempt from NOA 

requirements. In response to this and 

other comments, we have added a 

definition for ‘‘Operating exclusively 

within a single Captain of the Port 

zone’’ in § 160.202 to clarify what we 

mean by that term. 

One commenter noted that its youth 

program vessels would not be able to 

comply with NOAD requirements 

because these sailing vessels have no 

computers on board and there is no WiFi (wireless Internet or network 

connections) available in the inlet from 

which the vessels sail. The commenter 

suggested that this problem could be 

settled if a waiver or exemption is 

granted or if its vessels were considered 

noncommercial. 

As noted above in the ‘‘Definitions’’ 

discussion, VI.A.2, we did not change 

the definition of ‘‘commercial vessel’’ 

for these vessels for the reasons stated 

there, nor do we see a valid basis for 

creating an exemption for vessels in this 

program. However, the waiver section in 

subpart C, § 160.214, may be a means to 

deal with the situation this commenter 

described. The COTP may grant a 

waiver of some or all of the NOA 

requirements for a given situation if, 

based on the COTP’s assessment, a 

waiver is warranted. Also, note that in 

response to a comment discussed below 

in VI.A.12, we amended § 160.210(a) to 

provide the option for a vessel operator 

who does not have shore-side support 

available to fax or phone in an NOA or 

an update, for a vessel in an area 

without internet access or when 

experiencing technical difficulties with 

an onboard computer. 

One commenter expressed support for 

the proposal to maintain the exemption 

for U.S. commercial vessels 300 gross 

tons or less and not carrying CDC that 

transit between ports or places of the 

United States. This commenter stated 

that changing this exemption would 

adversely affect commerce, specifically 

intercoastal commerce, and, 

subsequently, interstate commerce. 

This comment relates to 

§ 160.204(a)(4)(vi) in the NPRM. As 

proposed, we narrowed the 300-grosstons-or-less exemption in the current 

§ 160.203(b)(1) that covers U.S. and 

foreign vessels. Under 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(vi) in this final rule, a 

U.S. vessel 300 gross tons or less, 

engaged in commercial service but not 

carrying CDC, will be exempt from NOA 

requirements only if the vessel is not 

coming from a foreign port or place. 

There is no longer an NOA exception for 

foreign commercial vessels based on 

tonnage, but § 160.204(a)(5)(i) does 

contain an exemption for foreign vessels 

300 gross tons or less not engaged in 

commercial service. 

One commenter asked us to consider 

the 1908 Treaty of Extradition, 

Wrecking and Salvage (Salvage Treaty) 

(35 Stat. 2035; Treaty Series 502). This 

treaty states, in part, that nothing in 

customs, coasting, or other laws or 

regulations shall restrict in any manner 

salving operations of vessels wrecked, 

disabled, or in distress, or wrecking 

appliances ‘‘in the waters or on the 

shores of the other country in that 

portion of the St. Lawrence River 

through which the International 

Boundary line extends, and, in Lake 

Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, Lake 

Huron, and Lake Superior, and in the 

Rivers Niagara, Detroit, St. Clair, and Ste 

Marie, and the Canals at Sault Ste 

Marie, and on the shores and in the 

waters of the other country along the 

Atlantic and Pacific Coasts within a 

distance of thirty miles from the 

International Boundary on such Coasts.’’ 

Art. II of the Salvage Treaty. Regarding 

reporting, it states that vessels from 

either the United States or Canada 

employed in salving in the waters of the 

other shall, as soon as practicable 

afterwards, make full report at the 

nearest custom house of the country in 

whose waters such salving takes place. 

The commenter also noted that Article 

II of the Salvage Treaty also permits 

vessels from either country to conduct 

emergency operations in the other’s 

territorial waters when necessary to 

assist a disabled vessel in distress. The 

commenter concluded that requiring 

tugs or other vessels to comply with 

time clearances and notices prior to and 

after embarking on an Article II mission 

would restrict salving operations, 

putting vessels, crews, property, and the 

environment at risk. 

Based on this comment about the 

Salvage Treaty which provides 

reciprocal rights for United States and 

Canada in matters of wrecking and 

salvage, we have added an exemption 

for United States- and Canadian-flag 

vessels engaged in operations identified 

by Article II of this treaty for the waters 

and shores it specifies. This exemption 

appears in revised § 160.204(a)(4). 

One commenter noted that 

exemptions in proposed 

§ 160.204(a)(4)(iii) for U.S. towing 

vessels and U.S. barges operating solely 

between ports or places of the 

continental United States should 

include passenger vessels operating 

solely on fixed routes between ports and 

places of the continental United States. 

The commenter states that exemptions 

already exist for U.S. towing vessels and 

barges, commercial U.S. vessels less 

than 300 gross tons, public vessels, and 

vessels other than tank vessels operating 

on the Great Lakes. 

We note that certain passenger vessels 

may qualify for some of the four 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5293 

exemptions cited by this commenter, 

but reasons for those exemptions do not 

support creating a general exemption for 

all passenger vessels. First, towing 

vessels and barges do not carry 

passengers and, like other vessels, are 

required to comply with NOA 

requirements when carrying CDC. 

Second, before September 11, 2001, 

both United States- and Canadian-flag 

vessels that operated solely on the Great 

Lakes and that were not tank vessels or 

carrying CDC were exempt under 33 

CFR 160.201(c)(8)(2001) from NOA 

requirements. Our current Great Lakes 

exception, § 160.203(b)(6), reflected in 

redesignated § 160.204(a)(5)(v) of this 

final rule, is narrower but does not 

exclude passenger vessels, and is 

consistent with the more-than 100-yearold Boundary Waters Treaty, 

proclaimed May 13, 1910, with specific 

provisions to ‘‘continue free and open 

[navigation] for the purposes of 

commerce’’ on the Great Lakes and 

other United States-Canadian boundary 

waters. Third, some passenger vessels 

would qualify for the exemption under 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(vi) for U.S. commercial 

vessels 300 gross tons or less that are 

not carrying CDC or coming from a 

foreign port or place, and those 

passenger vessels greater than 300 gross 

tons would share size features that 

warrant NOA requirements. Fourth, the 

Coast Guard established the exemption 

for public vessels not carrying CDC 

because such vessels would be owned 

or operated by a government. We have 

not made a change from the proposed 

rule based on this comment. 

In addition to the exemptions cited, 

certain passenger vessels will qualify for 

an exemption we have added to the 

final rule for ferries that provide certain 

general information to COTPs. Other 

passenger vessels seeking exemptions 

for operating solely on fixed routes 

between ports or places in the 

continental United States may seek a 

waiver under 33 CFR 160.214 from each 

COTP for the zones the vessel plans to 

transit. The operating-within-a-singleCOTP-zone exception relieves a 

reporting burden for non-CDC vessels 

once they enter a COTP zone but does 

not interfere with each COTP having 

access to NOA information for vessels 

subject to NOA requirements that arrive 

in the COTP’s zone. 

One commenter noted that the 

proposed revision to NOAD regulations 

does not affect its vessels transporting 

passengers and vehicles to the island of 

Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, but 

that it would be unjustifiable to impose 

NOAD on operations within lakes, bays, 

or sounds. 

We note that the exemption for 

vessels not carrying CDC that operate 

exclusively within the same COTP zone 

may cover most vessels otherwise 

subject to NOAD regulations that 

operate in lakes, bays, or sounds. If a 

vessel is transiting more than one COTP 

zone, however, then under 33 CFR 

160.214, the vessel Master may request 

a waiver from NOA requirements. As 

noted above, based on comments 

received on the NPRM, we have 

included an exemption for ferries that 

provide certain general information to 

the COTPs. 

One commenter noted that the 

existing § 160.204(b)(2) and proposed 

§ 160.204(a)(4)(ii) operating-exclusivelyin-a-single-COTP-zone exception is 

confusing and will decrease MDA. The 

commenter stated that this exemption 

should be removed, made applicable to 

U.S.-flag vessels only, or limited to 

vessels that remain inside the territorial 

sea baseline or boundary line. Finally, 

the commenter recommended that if the 

exemption stays, it should be reworded 

to remove ‘‘exclusively,’’ and should 

instead read ‘‘A vessel that transits from 

one port or place to another port or 

place within a single Captain of the Port 

zone. Captain of the Port zones are 

defined in 33 CFR part 3.’’ Another 

commenter cited Congressional 

mandates in the Security and 

Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006 (SAFE Port Act)(Pub. L. 109–347) 

to support his request to exclude foreign 

vessels from this exemption. Another 

commenter stated that, regarding the 

exemption for operating within a single 

COTP zone, typically, the NOA is 

understood to be required for arrival at 

a port. The commenter noted that if a 

COTP zone area is 200 miles all the way 

out to the exclusive economic zone, a 

vessel does not have to submit an NOA 

to that place, be it at the Louisiana 

Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) or a port. The 

commenter asked if this single-COTPzone exemption includes ‘‘voyages to 

nowhere;’’ for example, a ship that 

leaves Miami, goes offshore for 24 or 48 

hours, stays within the COTP Miami 

zone, and comes back to Miami. The 

commenter also asked whether the 

exemption is for navigable waters only 

or also includes the exclusive economic 

zone. 

In response to the commenter who 

finds the term confusing, we have added 

a definition of ‘‘operating exclusively 

within a single Captain of the Port 

zone’’ to 33 CFR 160.204 that is 

intended to clarify the NOAD singleCOTP-zone exemption. 

While a vessel’s initial arrival in a 

COTP zone may require the submission 

of an NOA, when a vessel is operating 

exclusively within a single COTP zone, 

it may qualify for an exemption under 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(ii) and thus not have to 

file an NOA or update for each of its 

transits within that COTP zone. With 

regard to the recommendation that this 

operating-in-a-single-COTP-zone 

exemption only apply to U.S.-flag 

vessels, we note that foreign-flag vessels 

are screened upon arrival to their first 

U.S. port, as are U.S. commercial vessels 

arriving from a foreign port or place. 

Therefore, the potential threat posed by 

a foreign vessel can be assessed and 

appropriate measures taken on a caseby-case basis, rather than having this 

exception apply only to U.S. vessels. 

This approach allows for efficient use of 

Coast Guard assets and resources and 

prevents the imposition of an 

unnecessary burden on the maritime 

industry. 

Under regulations in 33 CFR part 160, 

subpart C, the COTP zone exemption 

covers the entire COTP zone, which 

may extend 200 nautical miles from 

shore. If the ‘‘trip to nowhere’’ is within 

a single COTP zone, then it would not 

trigger NOA requirements in part 160. 

Current regulations in 33 CFR part 146, 

however, impose separate NOA 

requirements for vessels calling on an 

offshore location. See specifically 

§§ 146.401 and 146.405. Also, in 

reference to the LOOP, § 150.325 

identifies NOAD requirements for the 

owner, Master, agent, or person in 

charge of a tanker bound for a manned 

deepwater port. 

One commenter noted that the 

exemption for passenger vessels and 

offshore supply vessels 

(OSVs)(§ 160.204(a)(1)) when employed 

in the exploration for or in the removal 

of oil, gas, or mineral resources on the 

continental shelf, and for oil spill 

response vessels (OSRVs) 

(§ 160.204(a)(2)) when engaged in actual 

spill response operations or during spill 

response exercises, should not extend to 

foreign-flag vessels. The commenter 

notes that, as written, the exemption for 

OSRVs and OSVs may be interpreted as 

allowing similar foreign vessels to enter 

or leave U.S. ports without reporting, 

and that such vessels currently work 

‘‘under the radar’’ of government 

agencies and thus create security 

vulnerabilities. The commenter 

recommended that the Coast Guard add 

‘‘U.S.’’ to § 160.204(a) to indicate that 

exempt vessels do not include foreignflag vessels. The commenter cautioned 

that if the Coast Guard left the final rule 

written as the proposed rule, the final 

rule would allow foreign-flag offshore 

supply vessels to come and go at will in 

this country, and that this would 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

represent a security risk to America, in 

direct violation of the law. 

We note that under § 160.204(a), 

OSRVs, whether foreign flag or U.S. flag, 

will continue to be exempt from 

requirements in 33 CFR part 160, 

subpart C, when they are engaged in 

actual spill response operations or 

during spill response exercises, as will 

U.S. and foreign passenger vessels and 

offshore supply vessels when employed 

in the exploration for or in the removal 

of oil, gas, or mineral resources on the 

continental shelf. As we have noted, 

however, we recently published an 

NOA–OCS final rule (76 FR 2254, Jan. 

13, 2011) that covers notice-of-arrival 

requirements on the OCS and satisfies 

SAFE Port Act implementation 

requirements intended to improve 

maritime security through enhanced 

layered defenses, and for other 

purposes. For NOA requirements on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, see 33 CFR part 

146. We did not make any changes from 

the proposed rule based on this 

comment. 

One commenter stated that the Coast 

Guard should consider that individual 

vessel waivers by COTP will not work 

given the number of vessels visiting 

various ports at various times and 

having to be considered individually. 

We anticipate that COTPs will be able 

to meet the demand created by waiver 

requests. We recognize that factors 

presented by certain vessels that will be 

subject to NOAD requirement for the 

first time under this final rule may 

warrant a waiver for a specific vessel 

within a specific COTP zone, and that 

COTPs may receive more waiver 

requests in response to this final rule. 

We have taken into consideration the 

COTP’s workload under the waiver 

provision of § 160.214 and have 

reviewed blanket exemption requests 

extensively to determine if relief may be 

granted at the national level in this final 

rule. We have determined that allowing 

COTPs to grant waivers should continue 

to be a means we leave open to provide 

relief from NOAD requirements when 

such relief is justified in a specific 

situation. 

One commenter focused on the OCS 

and requested that the Coast Guard 

ensure that the exemptions from NOA 

only apply to U.S.-flag vessels, and that 

this exemption should be across the 

board—not just for offshore supply 

vessels, but for OSRVs and some of the 

other vessels that have exemptions. 

We have concluded that limiting 

exemptions to U.S.-flag vessels is 

impracticable because it would place an 

unnecessary burden on foreign-flag 

vessels, which may interfere with 

commerce. The NOA requirements serve 

a variety of purposes, including, but not 

limited to, maintaining MDA and 

scheduling inspections. Once a foreignflag ship has been screened and 

appropriate activities (inspection, 

boarding, etc.) have been carried out, 

the Coast Guard has assessed, and in 

some cases reduced, the risk the ship 

may pose. 

One commenter stated that, from the 

enforcement side, there is sometimes a 

difference between how arrivals and 

departures are reported. The commenter 

offered the following example: A vessel 

arrives in Miami and submits an NOA 

for Miami. While the vessel is in port, 

it shifts to Fort Lauderdale, which is 

still within the COTP Miami Zone. But 

for the NOD to be accurate, it would 

report Fort Lauderdale. The commenter 

asks whether this scenario creates 

enforcement confusion and if there is 

some means to address this. 

We do not believe situations like this 

will create an issue as it pertains to 

enforcement. The COTP is aware of his 

or her geographical boundaries and the 

ports within those boundaries. And, as 

we discuss elsewhere, we have 

eliminated our proposed notice of 

departure. But if a vessel is operating in 

a single COTP zone and submits an 

NOA from a departure port within that 

zone that is different from their arrival 

port in that zone, it will not create 

confusion. 

One commenter who reported making 

frequent near-port offshore transits 

offered his assessment that local Coast 

Guard concerns deal with the inability 

to monitor vessel traffic offshore. The 

commenter stated that one of the 

problems in the industry is the Coast 

Guard’s inconsistent application of 

NOA exemptions or overriding 

regulations in response to security 

concerns. 

We work to ensure consistent 

application of the NOA regulations 

throughout all U.S. ports by establishing 

an internal NOA enforcement policy 

that provides guidance to all field units. 

We also provide general guidance to 

clarify the intent or purpose of certain 

provisions of the NOA and to ensure it 

is being applied consistently throughout 

the Coast Guard. This information is 

located in the General Information 

portion of the ‘‘Port State Control’’ page 

on Homeport (http://

www.homeport.uscg.mil/) and on the 

NVMC World Wide Web site (http://

www.nvmc.uscg.gov). We have also 

published a notice of policy in the 

Federal Register that addresses how the 

definition of ‘‘port or place of 

destination’’ is interpreted by the Coast 

Guard. See 71 FR 62210, October 24, 

2006. Please note that while we try to 

ensure consistency, there are port 

specific factors that the COTP must take 

in consideration when evaluating the 

potential risk that may be associated 

with a vessel arrival to his or her zone. 

4. NOA Information 

One commenter supported the 

proposed rule’s added NOA 

requirements to submit the Maritime 

Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number 

and to report whether the vessel is 300 

gross tons or less, but recommended 

that the Coast Guard require the 

submission of information on vessel 

type, last and next port of call, and hull 

type for tankers and barges. 

We do not believe that collecting 

vessel and hull type of tankers and 

barges through NOAD reporting 

requirements is necessary because we 

are able to determine vessel and hull 

type through other means. 

Section 160.206 and Table 

160.206(2)(iii) and (ix) of this final rule 

require reporting of the port or place of 

the United States a vessel will visit, as 

well as its last port or place of 

departure. Based on this comment, 

however, we did make a nomenclature 

revision, adopting defined terms for use 

in Table 160.206(2)(ix) by changing the 

proposed ‘‘Last Port of Call’’ to ‘‘Last 

port or place of departure,’’ and making 

a corresponding change in Table 

160.206(2)(x). 

One commenter recommended that 

the Coast Guard specify the Universal 

Location Code (ULC), developed by the 

Federal Industry Logistics 

Standardization (FILS) Committee, as 

the means to report the data element in 

proposed Table 160.206(2)(iii)(‘‘For the 

port or place of the United States to be 

visited, list the name of the receiving 

facility, the port or place, the city, and 

the state.’’). The commenter noted that 

this revision would allow the Coast 

Guard to easily cross reference 

information on locations collected by 

other agencies to improve safety and 

enhance security. The commenter 

identified a government World Wide 

Web site where the list of location codes 

would be available. 

As noted, § 160.206(a) and Table 

160.206(2)(iii) of this final rule, as in the 

proposed rule, requires the name of the 

receiving facility, port or place, city and 

state. This information is available to 

vessel owners and provides the 

necessary detail required for this final 

rule to meet its PWSA objectives of 

obtaining information necessary to help 

enhance the safety and security of U.S. 

ports and waterways and to permit 

vessel traffic management. We are active 

participants of the Federal Initiative for 

Navigation Data Enhancement (FINDE) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5295 

and proponents of the FINDE ULC. 

Unfortunately, we are not currently able 

to use the ULC in our enterprise 

systems. Also, we would want to initiate 

a separate rulemaking to invite 

comments specifically on the use of 

ULCs for NOAs before imposing such a 

requirement. Therefore, we have not 

made any changes based on this 

comment. 

One commenter stated that the new 

requirement for vessels to submit their 

estimated time of arrival to the entrance 

to the port (if applicable) would prove 

extremely helpful for vessels calling on 

the Lower Mississippi River. 

We concur that it would be helpful for 

the Coast Guard to receive a vessel’s 

estimated date and time of arrival to the 

entrance of the port, but because we can 

obtain this data through other existing 

means, we have decided not to include 

this new proposed item (2)(xi) in Table 

160.206 in this final rule. This 

paragraph would have required the 

submission of the estimated date and 

time of arrival of when a vessel would 

reach, for example, the sea buoy, pilot 

station, or COLREGS demarcation line 

of a port, if applicable. The Coast Guard 

can use AIS data in combination with 

the essential, current NOA requirement 

in paragraph (a)(2)(iv), for a vessel to 

estimate the date and time of its arrival 

‘‘[f]or the port or place of the United 

States to be visited,’’ to provide MDA on 

when the vessel will reach the entrance 

to the port. 

One commenter wanted the Coast 

Guard to take a more aggressive stance 

on Certificate of Adequacy compliance 

regarding maritime pollution, and 

recommended that we use this rule to 

require the submission, as part of 

NOADs, of two IMO forms, the Advance 

Notice Form (ANF) discussed in 

MEPC.1/Circ.644, and the Waste 

Delivery Receipt (WDR) discussed in 

MEPC.1/Circ.645, to provide necessary 

visibility to verify COAs and help 

implement the International Convention 

for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships (MARPOL). The commenter 

stated that the timing differential 

between NOA and ANF and WDR 

submissions would need to be rectified. 

The submission of IMO forms to 

verify the Certification of Adequacy to 

implement MARPOL, and the 

implementation of a mandatory 

mechanism for ships to request 

shoreside reception services and a 

follow-up questionnaire are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. We have not 

made any changes from the proposed 

rule based on this comment. 

At the March 12, 2009, public meeting 

on MARPOL Reception Facilities (see 74 

FR 8807, February 26, 2009), we raised 

a number of challenges regarding the 

shoreside waste reception issue. We 

noted that a mandatory mechanism 

needs to be implemented for ships to 

request shoreside waste reception 

services and also to report whether 

services were provided as requested. 

One commenter stated that MARPOL 

reception facility reporting should not 

be integrated into the electronic Notice 

of Arrival and Departure (eNOAD) 

program because the commenter 

supports the use of recently published 

IMO standardized Advance Notice 

Forms and Waste Delivery Receipt as 

the vehicle by which port states can 

collect information on the adequacy of 

MARPOL reception facilities in their 

nations. The commenter noted that 

integrating various information needs of 

these forms would be difficult to do in 

a clear and concise fashion, given the 

already complex eNOAD format. The 

commenter also stated that waste 

reception facility data, under a separate 

system, can be routed directly to the 

appropriate Coast Guard officials for 

review and action, and obviate the need 

for these officials to access the eNOAD 

database to retrieve reception facility 

information. 

The Coast Guard has developed the 

eNOAD application, accessible via the 

National Vessel Movement Center’s 

(NVMC’s) World Wide Web site, to 

provide a vessel with the means of 

fulfilling the arrival and departure 

notification requirements of the Coast 

Guard and CBP online. 

While we may agree with this 

MARPOL reception facility comment, as 

noted above in response to a commenter 

with a different view, revising the NOA 

rule to integrate MARPOL reception 

facilities into NOAD requirements, and 

thus eNOAD application, is beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

One commenter agreed with the Coast 

Guard in requiring only the last five 

foreign ports for domestic vessels, but 

the commenter stated that it is very 

important that foreign vessels supply 

the Coast Guard with the last five ports, 

whether domestic or foreign, because 

the Coast Guard needs to start looking 

at the total picture of the U.S. maritime 

domain. 

We note that, as proposed in the 

NPRM, we have added item (2)(ix) to 

Table 160.206, which, under 

§ 160.206(a), requires a vessel, domestic 

or foreign, to list its last port of 

departure. We have also converted two 

data fields for the last five ports or 

places visited to the last five foreign 

ports or places visited. See Table 

160.206(2)(i) & (ii). Once the vessel has 

entered U.S. waters, the last-port-orplace-of-departure data generated by 

Table 160.206(2)(ix) will provide us 

with sufficient data on a vessel’s travel 

within U.S. waters to maintain MDA. 

This information is necessary for 

Coast Guard compliance verification 

examination matrixes to determine the 

threat a vessel poses to a U.S. port. The 

last-five-foreign-ports information is 

also needed for the Condition of Entry 

(COE) Program which assesses 

effectiveness of anti-terrorism measures 

in foreign ports. If effective antiterrorism measures are not in place, 

then conditions of entry are imposed on 

vessels bound for the United States—see 

e.g., recent COE notice (79 FR 33771, 

June 12, 2014). This information has 

also been useful to screen to determine 

if a vessel has visited a country 

impacted by the Ebola virus outbreak 

within its last five ports of call. 

One commenter stated that the COTP 

in Houston needs to know that a vessel 

came from New Orleans, and prior to 

that, that it came from Mobile. The 

commenter noted the Coast Guard needs 

to be able to track a vessel moving 

through the Gulf of Mexico. 

As mentioned above, we have added 

item (2)(ix) in Table 160.206, which, 

under § 160.206(a), requires vessels to 

list their last port or place of departure. 

So whether a vessel is coming from a 

foreign port or place or another U.S. 

port or place, the COTP in Houston in 

the commenter’s example will have 

access to that information. If a COTP is 

interested in identifying the track of a 

vessel once it is in U.S. waters, there are 

other means and methods (e.g., AIS and 

VTS data) at the COTP’s disposal which 

can be used to determine this without 

requiring vessels to list more than their 

last U.S. port or place of departure. 

One commenter stated that while it 

may be outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, the Coast Guard should add 

the following recommendation to the 

scope of the rulemaking. The 

commenter recommends that adding 

more data elements that combine Coast 

Guard reporting with additional 

customs reporting could eliminate an 

entire set of paperwork that is processed 

for the CBP, namely, CBP Form I–418, 

Passenger List—Crew List. The 

commenter noted that this is not the 

first time the commenter has made this 

recommendation and that, if adopted, 

the change would save both the private 

sector and government agencies a great 

deal of time and money. Another 

commenter stated that many other 

improvements can be made to this 

reporting system and repeated a past 

suggestion for a working group of users 

sitting together with the Coast Guard 

and the CBP to identify opportunities 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5296 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

for improving and streamlining the 

report. 

We are working with the CBP to 

address any eNOAD application issues 

related to Form I–418. Regarding the 

form itself, the CBP has noted that Form 

I–418, which is used by Masters, 

owners, or agents of vessels in 

complying with sections 231 and 251 of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, is 

completed upon the vessel’s arrival at 

its first port in the United States. See 75 

FR 1069, January 8, 2010. The CBP is 

looking for ways to streamline and 

automate that process (see the CBP 

supporting statement for information 

collection 1651–0103). We have not 

made a change from the proposed rule 

based on this comment. 

We remain open to suggestions for 

improving the eNOAD reporting system. 

We have forwarded the suggestion for a 

working group to the responsible Coast 

Guard office. Our focus here, however, 

is on specific comments on the revisions 

to the CFR that we proposed in our 

NPRM or specific comments on how we 

might best revise NOAD regulations. We 

have made no changes from the 

proposed rule based on these comments. 

One commenter stated that the 

massive amount of reporting 

information and duplicate reports are 

indicative of a system that is ‘‘working 

harder and not smarter.’’ The 

commenter presented as an example 

that the Coast Guard proposes NOAs 

that require four vessel identifiers. The 

commenter stated that this means that 

on every NOA, we are reporting the 

name, call sign, official number, and 

now the MMSI number, and that three 

of these are unique vessel identifiers. 

In § 160.206(a) and item (1) in Table 

160.206, we require submission of the 

vessel’s name, call sign, IMO 

international number (or an official 

number if no IMO number), and, if 

applicable, MMSI number, because 

multiple vessels may carry the same 

name. These four NOA data elements 

allow us to more quickly either 

authenticate the vessel’s reported 

identity or detect problems with those 

submitted data. In the latter case, we 

seek to determine if there is an error in 

one or more of the identifiers or if a 

vessel is attempting to submit false or 

improper identification data. 

One commenter stated that Coast 

Guard field units are continuously 

telling them that they have to report all 

broken equipment on the NOA. The 

commenter asserted this is not required 

currently or in the revised regulations, 

but that there is a lack of clarity on this 

point. Finally, the commenter stated 

that whenever there is a requirement to 

submit a CG–2692 form (Report of 

Marine Accident, Injury or Death) for a 

casualty report, they are constantly 

asked why they did not report it on the 

NOA. 

Regarding broken equipment, we 

work to ensure that our field units know 

NOA requirements, including the one 

for reporting broken navigation 

equipment on the NOA. Existing 

regulations do require an NOA report on 

the operational condition of navigation 

equipment required by 33 CFR 164.35, 

and, as we proposed, Item (6) in Table 

160.206 of this final rule expands that 

requirement to report on the operational 

condition of all navigation equipment 

(including AIS) required in 33 CFR part 

164. Moreover, in a note to Table 

160.206, we specify that submitting this 

report in the NOA, ‘‘indicating that 

navigation equipment is not operating 

properly[,] does not serve as notice to 

the District Commander, Captain of the 

Port, or Vessel Traffic Center, under 33 

CFR 164.53,’’ which has additional 

reporting requirements. Regarding 

casualties, if the marine casualty 

involves a hazardous condition as 

defined by redesignated § 160.202, the 

notice given to the nearest Coast Guard 

Sector Office or Group Office, as 

required by redesignated 33 CFR 

160.216, will satisfy 46 CFR 4.05–1 

casualty reporting requirements. Note, 

however, that there is a separate 

requirement under 46 CFR 4.05–10 that 

requires a written report on Form CG– 

2692. The NOA is not used to satisfy the 

redesignated § 160.216 requirements to 

report hazardous conditions, but in 

cases where the failure of a vessel’s 

navigation equipment creates a 

hazardous condition, the question as to 

why that condition was not reported on 

the NOA is appropriate. 

One commenter expressed problems 

discerning the requirements, 

particularly with immigration agencies 

and the CBP, regarding whether to use 

the spelling from a national passport or 

a U.S. Visa on our reports. 

We cannot address issues that pertain 

to the CBP or other agency regulations 

that involve immigrants; for purposes of 

Coast Guard NOAD regulations, 

however, we have left it to the owner or 

operator to determine which document 

more accurately reflects the spelling of 

a person’s name. For questions 

pertaining to CBP electronic passenger 

and crew manifest requirements, please 

visit the NVMC’s World Wide Web site 

at http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov or call the 

CBP at 409–727–0285, extension 238. 

One commenter who occasionally 

deals in lightering, particularly in other 

areas of the world, was not sure whether 

to list a lightering location as a last port, 

because it is not officially a terminal or 

a dock. The commenter expressed 

problems with explaining to Masters of 

his company’s vessels how to deal with 

transits of U.S. and international canals, 

such as the Panama Canal. The 

commenter offered an example of 

whether a vessel would need to report 

coming through the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal on a nearby coastwise 

voyage. 

If a vessel is engaged in lightering, 

then the lightering position would not 

be considered a port or place under 33 

CFR part 160, and this not would trigger 

part 160 applicability unless, while 

lightering, the vessel anchors or moors 

in the navigable waters of the United 

States or at a deepwater port. If a vessel 

anchors or moors in foreign waters 

while it is lightering, than that 

lightering position would be considered 

a foreign port or place and must be 

included on vessel’s NOA under 

§ 160.206 (a) and item (2)(i) in Table 

160.206, if it was one of the last five 

foreign ports or places visited. 

Regarding canals, if a vessel is only 

transiting through a canal, and does not 

anchor or moor during that transit, then 

it would not be considered as arriving 

at or departing from a port or place. 

We had proposed to add new fields 

for crewmember passport country of 

issuance and passport date of expiration 

in Table 160.206(4)(v) & (vi), and for 

persons in addition to crew, passport 

country of issuance and passport date of 

expiration fields in Table 160.206(5)(v) 

& (vi). We have not included these new 

fields in our final rule because we 

consider this information to be a matter 

of record based on CBP requirements. 

5. NOD Information 

One commenter discussing fishing 

industry vessels stated that the largest 

issue with the proposed rule is the time 

it takes to get an accurate NOD list of 

persons sailing and to input these data 

into electronic format for transmittal to 

the Coast Guard. As further discussed in 

the ‘‘When to Submit an NOD’’ section 

below, VI.A.8, based on comments on 

the NPRM, we have eliminated our 

proposal to require NODs. We have 

deleted § 160.213(a); this final rule does 

not require NODs. 

6. Electronic Submission 

One commenter recommended that 

the Coast Guard allow continued use of 

the Excel Workbook format for 

submission of NOADs via email, which 

the commenter believes is more processeffective. The commenter noted that 

some vessels are not set up to connect 

directly to the Internet to make real-time 

submissions, and that it is more processeffective for the ship’s Master to submit 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5297 

updates to the NVMC directly rather 

than by going through a vessel agency 

service. The commenter stated that the 

format and process for submitting 

NOADs and updates in the Excel format 

has been of minimum administrative 

burden for their Masters and is easily 

supportable without requiring direct 

real-time Internet connectivity from the 

ship. 

Under this final rule, and as indirectly 

reflected in the proposed rule, we will 

accept the following electronic forms: 

Submission through the NVMC eNOAD 

World Wide Web site, XML, which 

includes Excel Workbook format. XML 

spreadsheets may be submitted via 

email to sans@nvmc.uscg.gov. Based on 

this comment, we are revising the final 

rule from the proposed § 160.210 to 

specify that these currently available 

options, or other methods made 

available on http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov 

in the future, may be used to satisfy this 

requirement. 

One commenter stated that many 

commercial fishing vessels do not have 

the capability to submit NOAD 

information electronically, and therefore 

the rule creates an additional 

administrative workload that may 

require hiring additional administrative 

personnel because the information 

would have to be sent by a shore-based 

office. 

We have sought to impose the least 

burden possible while still meeting our 

regulatory objectives of obtaining 

information necessary to help ensure 

that we reach our PWSA objective of 

enhancing the safety and security of 

U.S. ports and waterways and to permit 

vessel traffic management. Many 

commercial fishing vessels would not be 

required to submit NOADs because they 

would qualify for an exemption, such as 

operating exclusively within a single 

COTP zone (§ 160.204(a)(5)(ii)) or being 

a U.S. vessel 300 gross tons or less, 

engaged in commercial service and not 

coming from a foreign port or place 

(§ 160.204(a)(5)(vi)). 

Regarding fishing vessels and other 

vessels, we do not believe our final rule 

will cause additional costs based on 

some vessels not having the capability 

for electronic submission other than 

vessels we have already estimated costs 

for in the regulatory analysis (RA). CBP 

requires electronic submission on most, 

if not all, of the vessels added by our 

final rule. Computer and internet access 

costs were captured by CBP in its 2005 

Electronic Transmission of Passenger 

and Crew Manifests for Vessels and 

Aircraft (aka Advance Passenger 

Information System or APIS) final rule 

(70 FR 17820, April 7, 2005) that 

required all commercial vessels (minus 

ferries) ‘‘arriving in the United States 

from any place outside the United 

States,’’ to submit arrival manifests 

electronically; therefore, we did not 

include the cost of computers or 

internet service for vessels affected by 

our rule. The Coast Guard assumed that 

vessel owners and operators will submit 

arrival information from onboard the 

vessel and not leverage any efficiencies 

from centralized fleet reporting. 

We did revise the current MississippiRiver-and-tributaries exemption, but we 

anticipate that most of those vessels will 

be able to take advantage of other 

exemptions afforded in the final rule 

such as the single-COTP-zone or U.S.- 

vessel-300-gross-tons-or-less 

exemptions. The Coast Guard does not 

collect information specifically on 

vessels that transit solely on the 

Mississippi and its tributaries; therefore, 

we are unable to quantify the number of 

vessels that take advantage of the 

current exemption. 

Also, in our final rule we created an 

exemption for certain ferries. Those on 

a fixed route between two or more 

COTP zones qualify for an exemption if 

they make a one-time submission as 

specified in § 160.204(a)(5)(vii) to 

qualify for the exemption, and are 

required to make future submissions 

only if their schedules or other 

submitted information changes. This 

alternative submission would not 

require a computer, and submission of 

such information has been a common 

industry practice since 2003 to obtain 

waivers from COTPs, and therefore any 

ferry lacking the capability for 

electronic submission would not incur 

additional costs as a result of our final 

rule. 

One commenter noted that limiting 

eNOAD submissions to this World Wide 

Web-based program may pose problems 

when severe weather events cause 

power outages; for example, companies 

did not have Internet service postHurricane Katrina until cell phone 

towers were rebuilt and cable re-laid. 

The commenter recommended that the 

Coast Guard provide an alternative 

method to report to the NVMC. 

This final rule does not limit 

submissions to only NVMC World Wide 

Web-based applications. It also allows 

for other electronic forms of submission 

such as email. But in cases where 

communication infrastructure is 

damaged and telecommunication 

services are not available due to natural 

disasters such as Katrina, the COTP may 

waive any or all NOA requirements 

within her or his COTP zone; also, a 

vessel may request a waiver under 33 

CFR 160.214 of any or all NOAD 

requirements. 

One commenter noted that it operates 

between the eastern Caribbean and the 

Mid-Atlantic States, and would like to 

alert the Coast Guard to some obstacles 

that might arise by requiring only 

electronic submissions. The commenter 

stated that one of its bases is St. 

Thomas, USVI, and on most of its 

vessels, the computers—if they have 

them on board—do not support the 

downloading of the notices or responses 

to the notices. The commenter noted 

that if its employees go shoreside to 

comply, they need to use Internet cafes 

that have computers and technology 

dating back to the 1990s. The 

commenter further stated that if they go 

to the homes of fellow captains, they 

have dial-up systems instead of 

broadband, and it takes hours to 

comply, so that doing away with paper 

notification entirely presents an 

obstacle. 

We understand that some vessel 

owners may submit shoreside NOAs but 

the Coast Guard does not collect 

information on the number of vessels 

that utilize this method of NOA 

submission. For the regulatory analysis, 

we assumed that all NOADs will be 

submitted from the vessel, and not take 

advantage of efficiencies from 

centralized fleet reporting. As use of the 

Internet continues to become more 

popular including wireless Internet 

access via cellular/satellite networks, 

we anticipate greater access to faster 

Internet transmissions in more 

locations. Also, the vessel Master, 

owner, or agent may take advantage of 

XML spreadsheets—readily available on 

the NVMC’s World Wide Web site—that 

can be downloaded and retained for 

future use to minimize the time needed 

to transmit NOAs. 

As stated in the NPRM, mandating 

electronic submission of NOAs allows 

the Coast Guard to quickly and 

automatically process, validate, and 

screen arrival notices. See 73 FR 76303, 

December 16, 2008. As discussed in 

VI.A.12, however, we amended 

§ 160.210(a) to permit phone or fax 

submission of an NOA or an update, in 

limited circumstances. 

7. When To Submit an NOA 

As noted in the Exemptions section 

above, one commenter reported a 

problem with being able to meet the 

requirement to submit a manifest either 

96 hours or 1 hour before departure 

because his youth-program sailing 

vessels, which sometime sail to Canada 

from Tacoma, WA, do not have 

computers onboard, and there is no 

wireless Internet or network 

connections in the inlet from which 

these vessels sail. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5298 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2There are differences in the terms and 

definitions CBP and the Coast Guard use regarding 

commercial vessels. In 19 CFR 4.7b (a), CBP defines 

‘‘commercial vessel’’ as ‘‘any civilian vessel being 

used to transport persons or property for 

compensation or hire.’’ In 33 CFR 160.202, the 

Coast Guard uses the 46 U.S.C. 2101 definition of 

‘‘commercial service’’ (‘‘any type of trade or 

business involving the transportation of goods or 

individuals, except service performed by a 

combatant vessel’’) to identify vessels in § 160.203 

that are subject to NOAD regulations. 

3For arrival submission times, compare 19 CFR 

4.7b(b)(2) with 33 CFR 160.212(a)(4); for departure 

submission times, compare 19 CFR 4.64 (b)(2) with 

33 CFR 160.213(a). Because these youth program 

sailing vessels occasionally sail to and from Canada, 

they would not be eligible for the exception of 

operating within a single COTP zone under 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(ii) for such trips because they would 

be leaving the COTP zone and thus not operating 

exclusively within it. 

Under existing Custom and Border 

Protection requirements in 19 CFR 4.7b 

and 4.64, commercial vessels 2 arriving 

from a foreign port or departing for a 

foreign port are required to submit 

arrival or departure manifests 

electronically. This Coast Guard final 

rule only requires NOAs, and those are 

to be submitted at the same times that 

CBP requires that arrival manifests be 

submitted. These youth-program sailing 

vessels may not meet CBP’s definition of 

‘‘commercial vessel’’ and thus may not 

trigger CBP requirement, but the Coast 

Guard may consider them vessels in 

commercial service and thus subject to 

33 CFR part 160 NOAD requirements, 

unless they otherwise fit into an 

exemption.3

As we noted previously, under 

§ 160.212, the time an NOA must be 

submitted varies based on the duration 

of the vessel’s voyage. Under § 160.214, 

however, a vessel may request a waiver 

of NOAD requirements from the COTPs 

whose zones it plans to transit. This 

waiver provision allows the COTP to 

make assessments based on specific 

factors about the vessel or COTP zone 

that are difficult to reflect in a general 

rule without imposing unnecessary 

burdens. 

One commenter wrote that lowering 

the applicability threshold for NOA 

reporting would not impact its fleet, 

which operates exclusively in the Great 

Lakes, but the commenter found some 

aspects of the current eNOAD reporting 

timelines to be punitive to vessels 

trading exclusively within the Great 

Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system. 

This commenter requests that the 

number of hours before arrival that an 

NOA is due, as stated in § 160.212, 

should be reduced to 6 hours for vessels 

engaged in non-ocean-going, short-haul 

(voyage of 24 hours or less) shipping. 

Also, for voyages of less than 24 hours, 

vessels may also have to contact local 

COTP. 

We considered this request to relax 

the timelines in 33 CFR 160.212 for 

submitting NOAs and NOA updates for 

vessels in general engaged in non-oceangoing, short-haul shipping, but have 

determined that this information is 

needed from such vessels on the 

timelines we proposed so that the Coast 

Guard and other federal entities have 

sufficient time to screen these vessels. 

As proposed in the NPRM, however, we 

did add a provision that would allow an 

NOA submission 60 minutes or more 

before departure for U.S. vessels 300 

gross tons or less, engaged in 

commercial service and not carrying 

CDC, that are coming from a foreign port 

or place on a voyage of less than 24 

hours. See § 160.212(a)(3) and 

discussion in NPRM at 73 FR 76303, 

December 16, 2008. As discussed below 

in the Financial Impact section, 

VI.A.12, in response to another 

comment on the NPRM and provisions 

in the Boundary Waters Treaty (36 Stat. 

2448; Treaty Series 548), we have 

revised § 160.212(a)(3) to extend its 

provisions to Canadian-flag vessels 

arriving directly from Canada, via 

boundary waters, to a U.S. port or place 

in the Great Lakes. 

We note that for vessels subject to the 

60-minutes-before-departure 

requirement, under § 160.214, a U.S. or 

foreign vessel may seek a waiver from 

the requirement for when NOA or NOA 

updates must be submitted. The COTP, 

who can evaluate the waiver request 

based on the circumstances of the COTP 

zone in which the vessel will arrive, 

may grant a waiver ‘‘for any vessel or 

class of vessels upon finding that the 

vessel, route, area of operations, 

conditions of the voyage, or other 

circumstances are such that application 

of this subpart is unnecessary or 

impractical for purposes of safety, 

environmental protection, or national 

security.’’ 

One commenter asked the Coast 

Guard to consider allowing vessels with 

a voyage of less than 24 hours to submit 

an NOA prior to departure. The 

commenter stated that this change 

would reduce the number of NOAs that 

need to be updated because data are not 

really known until departure. This 

commenter noted that current 

discussions of the ‘‘Seaborne Highway’’ 

suggest that the number of vessels with 

relatively short port calls and voyage 

times, and those operating on 

established schedules, is expected to 

increase. Finally, this commenter stated 

there is an inability to submit NOAs 

with consecutive ports (consolidated 

NOAs). 

We acknowledge that for vessels 

making short voyages it would be more 

advantageous to the owner or operator 

if NOAs could be submitted as close to 

departure as possible. The Coast Guard 

and other government agencies, 

however, need the time specified in the 

final rule to analyze and act on NOA 

data. We also need NOAs to reflect 

current data. 

Section 160.212(a)(3) of this final rule 

permits U.S. commercial vessels of 300 

gross tons or less, arriving from a foreign 

port or place on a voyage of less than 

24 hours, to submit an NOA up to 60 

minutes before departure. Whether the 

voyage is short or long, because of the 

nature of their cargo, we require towing 

vessels moving CDC solely between 

ports or places of the contiguous 48 

states, Alaska, and the District of 

Columbia to submit an NOA before 

departure, but at least 12 hours before 

arrival at the port or place of 

destination. See § 160.212(a)(2). 

As for the inability to submit NOAs 

with consecutive ports, we note that the 

submission of consolidated NOAs was 

introduced by a temporary rule issued 

soon after September 11, 2001 (66 FR 

50565, October 4, 2001), and was 

included in a 2003 final rule (68 FR 

9537, February 28, 2003). Under current 

regulations, a vessel may submit a 

consolidated NOA if, while on a single 

voyage, it plans to stop at more than one 

port or place in the United States. 

In the NPRM, we proposed to 

eliminate § 160.206(d), which 

specifically addresses consolidated 

NOAs, and to change the NOA data 

required by § 160.206(a) and Table 

160.206(2)(iv) & (v) from information 

regarding each U.S. port or place to be 

visited to information for ‘‘the port or 

place of the United States to be visited.’’ 

We proposed this change, which is 

contained in this final rule, because we 

found that some vessels fail to submit 

updated crew information and cargo 

information after submitting the 

consolidated NOA. As previously noted, 

we have redesigned our eNOAD 

application to retain previously 

submitted information to help reduce 

the burden of preparing subsequent 

submissions. 

One commenter requested that for 

U.S.-flag vessels operating on the Great 

Lakes on voyages of less than 24 hours, 

the Coast Guard reinstate a previous 

requirement that all vessels submit an 

NOA prior to departing the dock. The 

commenter notes this would avoid 

subsequent amendments caused by 

changes before departure but after an 

NOA is submitted. The commenter also 

stated that these vessels pose low 

security risk, and that they will be 

required to have a Transportation 

Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5299 

by April 15, 2009, and thus would not 

represent a security threat. In addition, 

this commenter recommended that 

vessels that fuel in Canada should be 

exempt from NOA requirements because 

there is no demonstrable need to file an 

NOA when simply fueling in Canada. 

This commenter noted that the 24-hour 

rule does not recognize that changes in 

vessel plans can require an 

unanticipated fueling in Canada, and 

that a refueling vessel would either have 

to check down or go to anchor to 

comply with the 24-hour rule if the 

local Coast Guard COTP does not allow 

it to enter sooner. 

We note that under both the existing 

regulations (§ 160.212(a)(3)(ii)) and this 

final rule (§ 160.212(a)(4)(ii)), a vessel 

greater than 300 gross tons on a voyage 

of less than 96 hours could submit an 

NOA just before departure, provided the 

NOA is submitted at least 24 hours 

before arrival. In this final rule, we 

allow U.S-flag vessels 300 gross tons or 

less that are coming from a foreign port 

or place to submit an NOA 60 minutes 

or more prior to departure if the voyage 

is less than 24 hours and the vessel is 

not carrying CDC (see 33 CFR 

160.212(a)(3)). As noted immediately 

above, the 60-minute requirement is 

necessary to provide the Coast Guard 

and other federal agencies an 

opportunity to screen the vessel’s 

passengers, crew, and cargo. 

Regarding updates, for vessels greater 

than 300 gross tons, § 160.212(b)(4)(iii) 

is intended to accommodate unexpected 

incidents and allows vessels on voyages 

of less than 24 hours to submit an 

update at least 12 hours before arriving 

in the port or place of destination. For 

U.S. vessels 300 gross tons or less, 

under § 160.212(b)(3), an NOA update 

may be submitted as late as 6 hours 

before arrival. 

8. When To Submit an NOD 

One commenter recommended that 

the Coast Guard remove the proposed 

requirement that U.S.-flag vessels 

operating between U.S. ports submit 

NODs, because this requirement would 

impose an excessive administrative 

burden on vessel operators without 

producing significant offsetting security 

benefits. The commenter stated that the 

proposed rule would require U.S.-flag 

vessels traveling from one U.S. port to 

another U.S. port, after completing a 

voyage from a foreign port, to submit 

NODs—as U.S.-flag vessels carrying 

CDC are required to—even if they have 

never visited a foreign port. 

In response to comments, we have 

removed the NOD requirement. This 

final rule does not require NODs. We 

have determined that requiring an NOD 

for a vessel going to a U.S. port is 

unnecessarily redundant because the 

vessel would also have to submit an 

NOA for their next U.S. port of 

destination. For vessels departing for a 

foreign port or place, we have not 

retained our proposed new requirement 

for an NOD because we consider that 

information to be a matter of record 

based on CBP requirements for vessels 

departing for a foreign port of place to 

submit departure manifests. 

One commenter noted that, in the 

discussion of NOAD requirements, there 

is no discussion of how those 

requirements might impact the CBP’s 

reporting requirement for vessels 

operating under a cruising license, 

specifically, private vessels greater than 

300 gross tons. The commenter also 

stated that, while an NOD is not 

required while transiting the same 

COTP zone, the CBP still requires 

reporting. The commenter further asked 

whether this reporting will take the 

place of the reporting required if the 

vessel changes COTP zones. 

We work with the CBP to ensure 

consistency in reporting requirements 

whenever possible; there may be some 

differences in requirements, because our 

missions and those of the CBP differ. 

We do not believe our NOA 

requirements will impact CBP reporting 

requirements, and as we have noted, we 

have removed our proposed NOD 

requirement. 

To note differences between the CBP 

electronic-passenger-and-crew-arrivalmanifest requirements and our NOA 

requirements, compare 8 CFR 231.1 and 

19 CFR 4.7b with 33 CFR part 160, 

subpart C. For the CBP electronicpassenger-and-crew-departure-manifest 

requirements, see 8 CFR 231.2 and 19 

CFR 4.64; see also 8 CFR 231.3. For each 

regulation, you should ensure that you 

provide the information required. 

9. Force Majeure 

One commenter stated that with 

severe weather conditions, requirements 

for eNOA filing may negatively impact 

vessel safety because a vessel may be 

subject to financial penalty if it deviates 

to another port or harbor. The 

commenter also noted that in addition 

to weather conditions, vessel 

destinations can change frequently and 

on short notice because of port and dock 

congestion, ice conditions, and cargo 

availability. 

We believe that our final rule properly 

addresses unanticipated or unforecasted 

severe weather conditions. Vessels that 

are forced to deviate to another port or 

harbor because of severe weather may 

claim Force Majeure, notify the local 

COTP of arrival, and provide the limited 

information required under § 160.215. 

The NOA update requirements in 

§ 160.208 are designed to accommodate 

changes in arrival caused by nonweather factors, such as port and dock 

congestion or cargo availability. Under 

33 CFR 160.204(a)(5)(vi), U.S. vessels 

300 gross tons or less, engaged in 

commercial service, not coming from a 

foreign port or place, and not carrying 

CDC, are exempted from meeting this 

NOA requirement. 

10. Need for NOAD Data and Agency 

Collaboration in Obtaining It 

Many of the comments in this 

category were focused on the interaction 

of Coast Guard and CBP requirements. 

We present these first. 

One commenter stated that the CBP 

and the Coast Guard should collaborate 

to make current software more efficient 

and less confusing, and to eliminate 

repetitive entries. The commenter noted 

that the same data are captured 

currently by the CBP, so additional 

reporting is burdensome and unfair 

because it serves no justifiable security 

purpose. Also, the commenter stated 

that the CBP uses real-time data to 

screen passengers when they leave 

Canada and when they enter the United 

States. Another commenter noted that 

there is no point in collecting and 

submitting the same information 

gathered and recorded by the CBP. 

Another commenter noted that the 

CBP and the Coast Guard have the same 

security goals, and that they should 

improve information sharing to lessen 

the demand placed on vessel operators 

by duplicative information requests. 

Another commenter stated that the CBP 

and the Coast Guard undertake 

impractical and financially 

irresponsible, duplicative efforts, noting 

that all of its international ferry 

passengers are pre-inspected by the CBP 

at the Victoria, BC terminal and are then 

inspected on arrival at Port Angeles 

terminal, and that every passenger must 

complete the International Crossing 

Form (IMO 24–2). Ferry operator 

employees provide vehicle license plate 

numbers to the CBP. The commenter 

also notes that under this system, there 

would be multiple layers of security for 

ferries, but still only one layer of 

security for the land border, which 

represents direct competition for ferries. 

Another commenter recommended 

that the CBP and the Coast Guard 

compare Form I–418 data with eNOAD 

submissions and then add other data 

fields to eliminate the need for a paper 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS, now the CBP) Form I–418 

(Passenger List—Crew List). Another 

commenter also sought the elimination 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5300 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of paper Form I–418 through 

programming changes to the eNOAD 

system to capture all necessary crew 

data. The second commenter noted that 

vessels are still required to file a paper 

Form I–418 with the CBP, which 

contains virtually the same data 

elements that are collected in the 

eNOAD, with the exception of the 

following three data elements in I–418: 

1. Will crewmember be performing 

longshore work while in the U.S.? (yes/ 

no) 

2. Date crewmember joined the ship. 

3. Date crewmember separated from 

the ship. 

One commenter saw the need for the 

addition of a field to declare a valid 

International Carrier Bond, because this 

information would assist the CBP in 

tracking fines related to APIS 

submissions and reduce the number of 

intent-to-fine notices being delivered to 

the wrong vessel agent. 

Finally, a commenter stated that the 

Coast Guard and other parts of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

should coordinate their information 

needs, and noted that the proposed 

reporting system would require vessel 

operators to capture and forward 

information already captured by the 

CBP. Also, this commenter stated that 

creating duplicate information taken 

from several sources by different 

authorities or processes wastes time, 

resources, and effort and introduces the 

opportunity for error. 

We agree that we should collaborate 

with the CBP. We have taken steps to 

eliminate duplicate reporting 

requirements and have established the 

NVMC World Wide Web site and 

eNOAD application to facilitate receipt 

of information required by both the 

Coast Guard and CBP. (For more details 

on the NVMC World Wide Web site, see 

VI.A.4, NOA Information, above.) In 

2013, NVMC modified the eNOAD 

application to include fields which 

capture the Form I–418 information, 

allowing for electronic submission of 

this information. We will continue to 

work towards not only providing a 

single window for reporting, but also an 

application that is both more userfriendly and efficient. 

As we stated in the NPRM preamble, 

we have worked with the CBP to avoid 

requiring a vessel to submit the same 

information to our agencies separately, 

but our agencies do have separate 

missions. The information we need to 

better enable us to fulfill our missions, 

for example under 33 U.S.C. 1225—to 

prevent damage to structures on, in, or 

adjacent to the navigable waters of the 

United States, safe vessel traffic 

management, as well as protecting those 

navigable waters—may differ somewhat 

from information the CBP requires to 

implement the laws defining its 

missions. To the extent, however, that 

we both require the same information of 

vessels, we do not require separate 

submissions of that information to 

satisfy our respective regulations in 19 

CFR and 33 CFR. The eNOAD 

application allows a vessel owner to fill 

out one NOA, which is disseminated to 

both the Coast Guard and CBP upon 

submittal. 

This final rule requires submission of 

general cargo information as well as 

whether the vessel is carrying CDC, but 

the CBP requires more detailed 

information about the cargo. See 19 CFR 

4.7. While the CBP has identified the 

eNOAD as an approved system for 

submitting vessel crew manifest data to 

the CBP (70 FR 17820, 17828, April 7, 

2005, ‘‘vessel carriers must use the 

eNOAD or XML transmission methods 

to transmit required manifest 

information’’), in 19 CFR 4.7(b)(2) it 

identifies a separate means for 

submission of electronic cargo 

declaration information to the CBP: The 

vessel Automated Manifest System 

(AMS) or any electronic data 

interchange system approved by CBP 

and announced in the Federal Register 

to replace the AMS system for this 

purpose. 

We agree that we share security goals 

with the CBP. As we noted above and 

in our NPRM (73 FR 76303, Dec. 16, 

2008), however, our agencies have 

different missions. We have worked 

with the CBP to avoid requiring a vessel 

to submit the same information to our 

agencies separately. The eNOAD 

application allows an arriving or 

departing ship to satisfy both agencies’ 

crew and passenger information 

requirements with a single submission 

to NVMC. See 33 CFR 160.206 and 19 

CFR 4.7b. 

Regarding international ferry 

passengers, as noted in the Exemptions 

section above, we have added an NOAD 

reporting exemption for certain ferries. 

To qualify for this exemption, the ferry 

operator must submit the schedule for 

the ferry to the COTP for each port or 

place of destination listed in the 

schedule by April 30, 2015 or at least 24 

hours in advance of the first date and 

time of arrival listed on the schedule 

after § 160.204(a)(5)(vii) of this final rule 

becomes effective. Ferry operators 

seeking this exemption must also 

submit other information listed in new 

paragraph § 160.204(a)(5)(vii), including 

a 24-hour contact number. This 

exemption more closely aligns our 

regulations with the CBP’s advance 

electronic passenger or crew member 

manifest exception for ferries in 19 CFR 

4.7b(c)(1). 

We are working with the CBP to 

address any eNOAD issues related to 

Form I–418, which calls for more 

information about passengers and crew 

than is required by the Coast Guard and 

CBP to be submitted electronically. As 

proposed in the NPRM, we have 

removed the option, formerly in 

§ 160.206(c), of submitting Form I–418 

to satisfy crew and passenger 

information reporting requirements. 

Regarding the form itself, which is used 

by Masters, owners, or agents of vessels 

in complying with sections 231 and 251 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

the CBP has noted that it is completed 

upon arrival of the vessel. See 75 FR 

1069, January 8, 2010. The CBP is 

looking for ways to streamline and 

automate that process (see CBP 

supporting statement for information 

collection 1651–0103). 

Currently, we permit multiple 

methods to submit an NOA. This final 

rule, which mandates electronic 

submission, will more closely align our 

procedures with those of the CBP, 

which currently receives advance 

electronic crew and passenger manifest 

information through the eNOAD 

application. 

The request to add a field to declare 

a valid International Carrier Bond is 

beyond the scope of this Coast Guard 

rulemaking. We have forwarded this 

comment, however, to the CBP for their 

consideration. 

One commenter noted that 

requirements for vessel operators to 

collect passenger, crew, and vessel 

movement information in the NOAD are 

duplicative and costly, and may 

produce misinformation. 

We disagree. For reasons stated in the 

preamble of our NPRM, we do not view 

our NOA requirements as duplicative. 

We have removed our proposed 

requirement for vessels to submit an 

NOD. 

One commenter stated that the Coast 

Guard’s proposed changes represent an 

unnecessary redundancy when 

transiting between U.S. ports, and that 

this undue burden increases the 

potential for errors. The commenter 

recommended that information 

submitted in the NOD should be shared 

with the recipients of the NOA to avoid 

having a separate notice with the same 

data being input by the owner or 

operator, and that only one notice 

should be required per voyage. 

We acknowledge that there is 

unnecessary redundancy in the 

submittal of both an NOA and NOD for 

consecutive U.S. port visits. As 

previously mentioned, we have 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5301 

eliminated our proposed NOD 

requirement. 

One commenter stated there is no 

reason why a vessel would need to 

report in again (i.e., after submitting an 

initial NOA) while the vessel is 

equipped with and monitored by AIS, 

especially if the vessel is participating 

in a cooperative VTS system. The 

commenter notes that the Coast Guard 

would already have information on the 

vessel’s previous whereabouts at foreign 

ports. 

We need the information collected on 

the NOA to fulfill our PWSA regulatory 

objective of obtaining information 

necessary to help enhance the safety 

and security of U.S. ports and 

waterways. Neither AIS nor VTS 

requirements provide the data, such as 

changes in passengers or crew, called 

for by NOA requirements. The 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(ii) exemption for a vessel 

operating in a single COTP zone reduces 

the number of NOAs that need to be 

submitted while still ensuring that 

NOAs can be used by a COTP to find 

out what vessels will be entering his or 

her COTP zone and who will be on 

board those vessels. 

To the extent that a single 

transmission is the best way to meet 

agency requirements, we agree with one 

commenter who stated that the Coast 

Guard and sister agencies should 

coordinate information needs and 

submission timing so that a single 

NOAD submission will meet the 

information needs of all appropriate 

agencies. In addition to the CBP, we 

have worked with other agencies that 

need information from ships arriving at 

or departing from U.S. ports or places. 

For example, the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation also 

allows the eNOAD to be used as a 

means of satisfying SLSDC 

requirements. See Seaway Notice No. 6– 

2008 (http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/navigation/

notice20080311.pdf). 

As noted above, based on NPRM 

comments, we have eliminated our 

proposed NOD requirement. We note 

that this change in no way alters CBP’s 

current electronic passenger departure 

manifest and electronic crew member 

departure manifest requirements. See 19 

CFR 4.64. 

One commenter noted that expansion 

of NOAD and AIS requirements to 

additional vessel populations and 

transit events will enhance MDA. The 

commenter stated that while the current 

eNOAD system adequately tracks 

vessels entering U.S. waters bound for a 

U.S. port or departing a U.S. port, in 

many cases it does not adequately track 

vessel movements while a given vessel 

transits among several U.S. ports. We 

agree; the expansion of NOA and AIS 

requirements implemented by this final 

rule will enhance MDA and greatly 

improve our ability to track vessel 

movements from one U.S. port or place 

to another. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule is not feasible, citing an 

example of a seafood company that has 

10 vessels, 8 of which have over 100 

persons sailing, most of whom are 

contracted on the day of sailing. Noting 

that these persons have already 

undergone background checks prior to 

being offered employment, the 

commenter questions the security 

benefit from the added workload this 

final rule will place on the fishing 

vessel industry and the Coast Guard. 

As noted above, we have sought to 

impose the least burden possible while 

still meeting our regulatory objectives of 

obtaining information necessary to help 

ensure the safety and security of U.S. 

ports and waterways and to enhance 

vessel traffic management. A vessel 

large enough to have 100 persons on 

board may not qualify for the exemption 

for U.S. vessels 300 gross tons or less, 

engaged in commercial service not 

coming from a foreign port or place 

(§ 160.204(a)(5)(vi)), and may sail too 

widely to qualify for the exemption for 

a vessel operating exclusively in a single 

COTP zone (§ 160.204(a)(5)(ii)), but 

NOAs are intended to provide a layer of 

security that allows the Coast Guard and 

other federal agencies to act on current 

information about persons on vessels 

planning to enter U.S. waters, transiting 

U.S. waters, or about to arrive in a U.S. 

port or place. Background checks 

provide a layer of security, but they do 

not provide these real-time data that 

better enable us to prevent or respond 

to a maritime transportation security 

incident. 

One commenter stated that DHS 

regulations in 8 CFR part 231 governing 

submission of arrival and departure 

manifests state that requirements for 

electronic submission of manifests do 

not apply to vessels arriving directly 

from Canada and that this should be 

formally acknowledged in this NOAD 

rule. 

We disagree with this commenter’s 

reading of 8 CFR part 231. Paragraph 

(b)(2) of 8 CFR 231.1 does contain an 

exception to the Form I–94 requirement 

for vessels ‘‘arriving directly from 

Canada on a trip originating in that 

country,’’ and 8 CFR 231.2(b)(2) 

contains a Form I–94 exception for 

vessels ‘‘departing on a trip directly for 

and terminating in Canada.’’ However, 

both of these sections point to 

requirements to submit manifests 

electronically. Section 231.1(a) points to 

19 CFR 4.7b requirements for the 

‘‘electronic transmission of arrival 

manifests covering passengers and crew 

members,’’ and § 231.2(a) points to 19 

CFR 4.64 requirements for the 

‘‘electronic transmission of departure 

manifests covering passengers and crew 

members.’’ 

One commenter requested that the 

Coast Guard reevaluate the final rule 

after the AIS requirements have taken 

effect and the Nationwide AIS (NAIS) 

monitoring infrastructure is in place, 

and then assess the continued need for 

NOAD requirements. The commenter 

notes that once AIS is fully 

implemented, it could obviate the need 

for NOAD reports and foreign crew data 

would continue to be provided through 

CBP reports. 

As recommended, we will reevaluate 

our need for NOAD data after the AIS 

requirements in this final rule become 

effective and the development of AIS 

application-specific messaging that 

mirrors eNOAD (see ‘‘Broader Use of 

AIS’’ discussion in VI.B.2). Section 

160.206 and paragraph 164.46(a) of this 

final rule reflect the different nature of 

information called for by the NOA and 

AIS requirements. To the extent that 

AIS can be relied on in the future to 

provide information that satisfies needs 

currently met only by NOAD data, we 

will consider revising NOAD 

regulations. 

One commenter noted that some areas 

that CDC vessels transit have VTS or 

AIS coverage, or both, and stated that 

this coverage provides the Coast Guard 

with an excellent awareness of 

movements within the port area. The 

commenter writes that these systems 

should enable the Coast Guard to 

monitor the movements of these vessels 

within a port area without the need for 

frequent NOA updates and delays 

created by the current system. The 

commenter recommends that the Coast 

Guard use VTS and/or AIS coverage to 

track vessel movements in the port area 

instead of requiring frequent NOA 

submissions for vessels carrying CDC 

within a port. 

We disagree with this 

recommendation. A combination of 

NOA, AIS, and VTS data provides a 

more complete picture that better 

enables us to meet our regulatory 

objectives of obtaining information 

necessary to help enhance the safety 

and security of U.S. ports and 

waterways. Not only would we be 

unaware of passenger and crew 

information for these vessels, but we 

would not have advance notice and 

other essential data obtained through 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

NOAs to put security measures in place 

for vessels carrying CDC. 

One commenter stated that just one or 

two typing errors on a crew list can be 

repeated multiple times in extremely 

short order. The commenter noted that 

Houston is the petrochemical capital of 

the Americas, and is fed by surrounding 

industrial ports, the majority of which 

are in the same COTP zone. The 

commenter stated that its ships bounce 

between these ports on a daily basis and 

that the port chemical trading pattern 

occurs between these ports like a ball in 

a pinball machine. The commenter 

noted that transits can be as long as 16 

hours sea-buoy-to-sea-buoy, and as short 

as 4 hours, and that combined with 

reports for small cargo parcels, the NOA 

for the next port, and the NOD for the 

existing port, there could be as many as 

five reports simultaneously, with the 

majority of the massive amount of 

information required by each being 

virtually the same. 

Based on comments on the proposed 

rule, we eliminated our proposed NOD 

requirement. If a vessel is operating in 

the same COTP zone and is not carrying 

CDC, then the single-COTP-zone 

exemption in § 160.204(a)(5)(ii) would 

apply. We expanded our definition of 

‘‘CDC residue’’ in our ‘‘Notification of 

Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous 

Cargoes’’ final rule (75 FR 59617, 

September 28, 2010). This revision, 

which reflects the reduced risks 

associated with CDC reside, allows more 

vessels to take advantage of the singleCOTP-zone exception. For vessels 

carrying CDC cargo, however, the COTP 

must evaluate all factors associated with 

the cargo, vessel, crew, and the 

infrastructure in the port and determine 

if it is necessary to utilize Coast Guard 

resources to mitigate any potential 

threat that the vessel cargo may pose. 

Vessels carrying CDC also have the 

option to request a waiver from the local 

COTP under § 160.214. 

In regards to reporting information, 

we are working towards eliminating the 

need to reenter data that are still 

applicable to the next NOA submitted 

via the eNOAD; through future software 

upgrades, we expect to decrease the 

amount of time spent on data entry with 

respect to both the NOA and NOD. 

One commenter noted that, in the 

past, massive updates and reporting 

have resulted in industry delays and 

confusion at the National Vessel 

Movement Center and at the local Coast 

Guard field units because they are 

overwhelmed with too many reports 

and cannot decipher the new 

information. The commenter noted that 

these reports always result in delays to 

industry, and that the minimum delay 

costs $1,000 an hour. The commenter 

asks why the reports cannot be 

simplified, combined, and streamlined 

by consolidating all of the repeated 

information. The commenter stated that 

once the information has been input on 

the first report, there should be no 

reason to repeat it continuously because 

the vessels are screened coming into 

every port by Marine Information for 

Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) at 

the field unit and the information is 

already contained in the first submitted 

report. Finally, the commenter makes an 

apparent reference to the 60-minutesbefore-departure NOA requirement in 

proposed § 160.212(a)(3) when noting 

that for short voyages, the Coast Guard 

has already considered an allowance 

within its regulations for vessels under 

300 gross tons, but not for vessels with 

the aid of AIS and COP in place. The 

commenter noted that no vessel bounces 

around ports in the United States more 

than chemical tankers, and requested 

that the Coast Guard provide some type 

of allowance to facilitate this type of 

trade. 

We are working proactively towards 

streamlining the eNOAD application 

and process. Many vessels that ‘‘bounce 

around’’ ports may qualify for an 

exemption because they are 300 gross 

tons or less or because they are 

operating exclusively in a single COTPzone, but these exemptions are limited 

to vessels not carrying CDC. Vessels 

carrying CDC do not qualify for these 

exemptions because of the risk 

associated with their cargo. Also, 

chemical tankers departing to another 

COTP zone will need to submit an NOA. 

The infrastructure, assets, and other 

factors in each COTP zone may be 

different, creating a different level of 

risk for the zone. Each COTP will need 

to evaluate this risk and determine if 

there are any additional criteria or 

safeguards that will need to be put in 

place. 

11. Scope and Scale 

One commenter noted that the rule 

has direct implications for a transit ferry 

system for islands in Casco Bay, and 

would impose a significant economic 

and administrative burden for that 

industry. The commenter recommended 

that the Coast Guard consider the scope 

and scale of the rule, and not 

underestimate the significant economic 

impact or overestimate the necessity of 

the rule. 

This final rule will not impact the 

Casco Bay ferry system because their 

vessels operate in a single COTP zone 

and therefore will be exempted. If Casco 

Bay ferry system chooses to operate in 

two or more COTP zones then it would 

need to provide the COTPs in those 

zones a one-time submission of their 

schedule and the information requested 

in § 160.204(a)(5)(vii) to qualify for an 

exemption from standard NOA 

reporting. 

We gave considerable consideration to 

the proposed rule and determined it is 

necessary to increase MDA by extending 

NOAD requirements for vessels that 

were not previously covered under part 

160, but based on comments we 

received on the NPRM we have made 

revisions. We have revised our 

regulatory analysis to note existing CBP 

requirements and to reflect changes 

from requirements that the Coast Guard 

proposed in the NPRM and those we 

included in this final rule. 

We expect this final rule to impose 

minimal regulatory costs on industry as 

a result of our elimination of the 

proposed NOD requirements, the 

addition of several exemptions and an 

exception, and the addition of only 

three NOA information fields that are 

new to industry. Also, as noted above in 

the ‘‘Exemptions’’ preamble discussion, 

based on comments on the NPRM, we 

have added an exemption for certain 

ferries in § 160.204(a)(5)(vii). 

12. Financial Impact 

We received various comments on the 

financial impact of the rule. 

Commenters noted that companies will 

incur computer software, programming, 

and hardware costs to process and 

protect data called for by this rule; that 

the cost of this added regulatory 

compliance is significant; that this rule 

presents an economic burden to marine 

operators already having financial 

difficulties; that there are substantial 

costs to capturing, coding, and 

transmitting data required by NOAD 

regulations; that requirements present a 

negative economic impact during a bad 

economy and a negative impact and 

threat to the viability of local 

economies; and that NOAD data 

collection will add a big administrative 

burden to passenger vessel operators. 

The Coast Guard estimated the NOAD 

costs of the rule based on the rule’s 

requirements and current CBP 

regulations. The additional cost for U.S. 

vessel owners and operators is for the 

new NOA fields on the NOA form; only 

three of these fields are new to industry. 

See the regulatory analysis in the docket 

for further detail. Any vessel coming 

from or departing to a foreign port or 

place is required to submit an electronic 

NOAD under CBP regulations, which 

require the use of a computer and 

associated hardware and software; 

therefore, we did not include the cost of 

a computer and other associated costs 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5303 

such as programming, hardware and 

software for the affected vessel 

population in this rule. Based on labor 

costs and the time to fill in the 

information for the three fields of data 

that are new to industry, we estimate it 

will cost a vessel owner or operator less 

than 1 dollar per trip to submit the 

additional arrival information. The 

Coast Guard attempted to reduce the 

financial impact of the NOA 

requirements on vessel owners and 

operators by adding exemptions and an 

exception based on comments from the 

NPRM. Additionally, the Coast Guard 

more closely aligned its requirements to 

CBP regulations in an effort to reduce 

the financial burden on industry and we 

also eliminated our proposed NOD 

requirement. 

One commenter requested that the 

Coast Guard consider the cumulative 

financial and administrative burden for 

maritime operators from this final rule, 

which comes in addition to other costs 

associated with regulations for TWIC, 

stability, discharges, STCW, other 

licensing changes, security plans, etc. 

We have considered the cumulative 

impacts associated with this final rule. 

Please see the AIS Cumulative Impact 

section of the regulatory analysis in the 

docket, including Table 22, Cumulative 

Impacts of AIS Final Rule. Executive 

Order 13563 underscored Executive 

Order 12866’s directive for government 

agencies to tailor their regulations to 

impose the least burden on society by 

taking into account the cost of 

cumulative regulations. The Coast 

Guard and DHS are working to 

implement this Order. 

In this final rule, we have sought to 

reduce the burden on industry by 

choosing the least-cost alternative with 

the use of Class B AIS devices for 

certain vessel classes given the statutory 

basis for AIS carriage, where ‘‘no 

action’’ is not an option. This allows us 

to meet our regulatory objectives of 

obtaining information necessary to help 

enhance the safety and security of 

United States ports and waterways and 

to enhance vessel traffic management. 

Moreover, regarding passenger vessels, 

in this final rule we are not adopting the 

threshold of 50 or more passengers we 

proposed in the NPRM. Instead, we are 

setting the threshold at vessels 

certificated to carry more than 150 

passengers, which is similar to the 

current threshold of more than 150 

passengers for hire. See 33 CFR 

164.46(a)(3)(i) and (iii) (2013). Other 

than certain dredges, all of the vessels 

this final rule add to those currently 

required to install and use AIS (see 

Table 6 in the RA) are covered by 46 

U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) and (C) which 

give no discretion to the Secretary. 

Based on our analysis, all vessels 

moving certain dangerous cargo and 

vessels certificated to carry more than 

150 passengers are already covered by 

the 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) and (C), 

MTSA length threshold. In the 

regulatory analysis in the docket for 

review, we estimated the costs to 

industry for the NOA and AIS portions 

of this rule. From our analysis, the NOA 

portion of this rule adds a present value 

discounted cost of about $201,619 over 

the 10-year period of analysis using a 7 

percent discount rate for all vessel 

owners and operators that must comply 

with NOA requirements. Our final rule 

adds less than 1 dollar per vessel trip for 

owners and operators to comply with 

the NOA portion of this rule. For AIS, 

we present a cumulative impact of the 

2003 MTSA AIS final rule and this final 

rule, in the regulatory analysis available 

in the docket for review. 

For NOA, and in our effort to be as 

least burdensome as possible, the Coast 

Guard more closely aligned its NOA 

regulations with CBP regulations to 

make it easier to satisfy both 

requirements through a single 

submission. 

One commenter disagreed with our 

proposal to expand the applicability of 

NOAD regulations and noted that this 

revision would be disproportionately 

costly to its towing vessels which 

operate on the Great Lakes, and to small 

businesses, because its tugs do not have 

onboard computers, Internet access, or 

facsimile capability, and because its 

offices that are capable of submitting 

NOAD notices electronically to the 

NVMC are not manned 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week, 365 days per year. The 

commenter notes that the nature of 

Great Lakes shipping involves short 

transits between the United States and 

Canada, with frequent border crossings, 

and that any form of electronic 

submission disproportionately affects 

this population of vessels and small 

businesses. This commenter 

recommended that vessels 300 gross 

tons or less arriving from a foreign port 

should have a more cost-effective 

avenue of reporting, such as verbal 

[spoken] notification and electronic 

notification within 48 hours. 

Based on this comment regarding 

vessels 300 gross tons or less, and 

provisions in the Boundary Waters 

Treaty (36 Stat. 2448; Treaty Series 548), 

we are extending provisions in 

§ 160.212(a)(3) to Canadian-flag vessels 

arriving directly from Canada, via 

boundary waters, to a United States port 

or place on the Great Lakes. Such 

vessels 300 gross tons or less and on a 

voyage of less than 24 hours may submit 

an NOA as late as 60 minutes before 

departure from the foreign port or place. 

Under the waiver section in subpart 

C, § 160.214, a COTP may grant a waiver 

of some or all of the NOA requirements 

for a given vessel in his or her COTP 

zone, if, based on the COTP’s 

assessment, a waiver is warranted. As 

we stated above in response to a 

comment regarding a different type of 

vessel without a computer on board, if 

the COTP determines that the situation 

warrants it, he or she may grant a 

waiver. Further, the COTP may require 

as a condition of the waiver that, instead 

of NOA data being submitted to the 

NVMC via methods specified in 

§ 160.210, the NOA data be conveyed to 

the COTP via an alternative means. We 

do not believe that a blanket exemption 

for towing vessels coming from a foreign 

port or places on the Great Lakes is 

warranted. In § 160.212(a)(3) of the final 

rule, we permit NOAs from certain 

vessels to be submitted up to 60 minutes 

before departure. However, to maintain 

sufficient MDA, we do need NOA data 

on vessels, persons, and cargo coming to 

the United States from foreign ports or 

places, even if the foreign port or place 

is a short distance away. 

One commenter stated that the rule 

understates the initial cost of 

compliance because it does not account 

for additional crew overtime incurred 

by requiring vessels to wait to depart 

from and arrive at the United States, the 

cost of Internet access, computer/

Internet installation, and computer 

training for crews. The commenter 

noted that the rule places a 

disproportionate burden on vessels 300 

gross tons or less and on small 

businesses. 

We do not believe that we 

underestimated the initial cost of 

compliance. Since the CBP’s Electronic 

Transmission of Passenger and Crew 

Manifests for Vessels and Aircraft final 

rule (70 FR 17820, April 7, 2005) 

precedes our rule for NOA requirements 

for vessels coming from a foreign port or 

place, we removed the costs associated 

with the submittal of NOAs and the 

computer cost for vessels that make 

these transits because the CBP’s final 

rule already requires electronic 

submission and subsequently estimated 

these costs in the cost analysis for its 

APIS final rule; therefore, we have 

revised our regulatory analysis 

accordingly and removed the costs 

associated with NOAs for vessels 

coming from a foreign port or place. 

Based on NVMC data, the Coast Guard 

estimates that about 2,500 foreign flag 

vessels 300 gross tons or less come to 

the United States from a foreign port; we 

estimate about 500 of these vessels 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

transit two or more COTP zones; the 

associated cost for these vessels is 

presented in the regulatory analysis. A 

discussion of the population appears on 

page 24 in the NOA cost analysis 

section of the regulatory analysis 

available in the docket for review. The 

Coast Guard does not collect 

information on whether vessel owners 

submit arrival information from 

shoreside facilities; for the purpose of 

our analysis and for tractability, we 

assume vessel owners would submit 

arrival information from onboard the 

vessel. Even with this conservative 

assumption, as noted previously, we 

expect this rule to impose minimal 

regulatory costs on industry as a result 

of our elimination of the proposed NOD 

requirements, the addition of several 

exemptions and exceptions and the 

addition of only three NOA information 

fields that are new to industry. We note 

that under § 160.204(a)(5)(vi) of this 

final rule, U.S. vessels 300 gross tons or 

less, engaged in commercial service not 

coming from a foreign port or place and 

not carrying CDC are exempted. 

The Coast Guard views U.S. vessels 

operating strictly on a domestic route as 

posing a reduced safety and security 

threat and we have incorporated several 

exemptions to exclude vessels operating 

solely in the United States. See 33 CFR 

160.204. Certain vessels are still 

required to submit a NOA, however, so 

that COTPs can be made aware of 

vessels planning to enter his or her 

zone, and for the Coast Guard to 

schedule inspections, and possibly 

establish safety or security zones. 

One commenter asked the Coast 

Guard to consider the cumulative 

economic impact of the NOAD rule on 

ferry companies serving international 

routes. The commenter noted that, 

viewed in isolation, each regulatory 

proposal (e.g., TWIC, TWIC readers, 

DOT passenger vessel accessibility 

requirements, EPA vessel discharge 

permits for vessel incidental discharges, 

EPA vessel air emission restrictions, 

passenger weight limitations and vessel 

stability revisions, and vessel speed 

limits for the right whale) may have 

some justification and its cost to vessel 

operators may appear to be manageable, 

but taken as a whole, the proposals are 

costly and burdensome to the 

international ferry operators, who are 

also suffering because of the downturn 

in international traffic across the United 

States-Canadian border in recent years. 

For the final rule, we completed a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA). The specific statutory 

requirements of a FRFA can be found at 

5 U.S.C. 604(a). Under these statutory 

requirements, we did not consider the 

cumulative impact of our other 

regulations on small businesses or 

affected ferry operations. This final rule 

will impose no additional costs on ferry 

owners and operators. Ferries that 

operate on a fixed route between two or 

more COTPs zones and on a regular 

schedule will be exempt from NOAD 

requirements if they submit the 

information required under 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(vii). This submission has 

been a common industry practice since 

2003 to obtain waivers from COTPs; 

therefore, there is no additional cost 

associated with this provision. All 

vessels that transit within the same 

COTP that do not carry a CDC will be 

exempt from submitting NOADs. We 

acknowledge that some of our other 

regulations have imposed additional 

costs on vessel owners and operators 

subject to this rule, which contains 

revised applicability provisions. We 

have taken the cost associated with this 

rule into consideration; please see the 

regulatory analysis in the docket for a 

discussion of the impacts of this rule on 

industry. In this final rule, we have 

sought to impose the least burden 

possible while still meeting statutory 

and international mandates, as well as 

our regulatory objectives of obtaining 

information necessary to help enhance 

the safety and security of U.S. ports and 

waterways and to enhance vessel traffic 

management. Therefore, in our effort to 

reduce costs on industry and small 

entities, we abandoned our proposal to 

reduce the threshold of more than 150 

passengers for AIS carriage to a 

threshold of 50 or more passengers. As 

previously noted, other than certain 

dredges, all of the vessels this rule adds 

to those currently required to install and 

use AIS (see Table 6 in the RA) are 

covered by 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) & 

(C) which give no discretion to the 

Secretary. We also present a cumulative 

impact analysis for the 2003 AIS final 

rule and this final rule in Table 22 of the 

regulatory analysis available on the 

docket for review. 

One commenter noted that, with 50 

ships worldwide and shipping offices 

around the world, his or her 

organization does not change the 

operating system on its computers often 

and that it has to upgrade its ships and 

offices almost simultaneously. The 

commenter noted its organization does 

not take computer operating system 

upgrades lightly. 

We do not anticipate that an upgrade 

to the computer operating system is 

necessary for the submission of an 

NOAD. In light of the CBP’s APIS final 

rule published in 2005, in which vessels 

coming from a foreign port or place 

must submit an arrival manifest (with 

the exception of ferries), this rule would 

not require an upgrade or replacement 

of existing means of submitting NOAs. 

If a vessel operator is required to submit 

an NOA or an update, but the vessel is 

in an area without internet access, he or 

she would be free to radio or use other 

non-internet means to convey NOA 

information to others in his or her 

organization that would be able to make 

a submission via the internet. In 

situations where a vessel operator must 

submit an NOA or an update, for a 

vessel in an area without internet access 

or when experiencing technical 

difficulties with an onboard computer, 

and he or she has no shore-side support 

available, the vessel operator may fax or 

phone the NOA or update, to the 

NVMC. However, based on Coast Guard 

information and for the purpose of the 

supporting regulatory analysis, our 

estimates assume NOAD information 

received by the NVMC is through the 

Internet. 

13. Outer Continental Shelf 

We received various requests to make 

changes from the proposed rule with 

respect to vessels on, or sailing to or 

from, the U.S. OCS. 

Because of the unique operations of 

vessels arriving in the OCS, we initiated 

a separate rulemaking, ‘‘Notice of 

Arrival on the Outer Continental Shelf’’ 

(NOA OCS) (RIN 1625–AB28), to 

address the statutory directive from 

section 109 of the Security and 

Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109– 

347, 120 Stat. 1884). The final rule in 

that NOA OCS rulemaking was 

published January 13, 2011 (76 FR 

2254). That separate rule addresses 

applicability, OCS NOA reporting times, 

as well as information submission 

requirements under that rule. See 33 

CFR part 146, as amended by 79 FR 

36401, June 27, 2014. 

As noted above in the ‘‘Applicability’’ 

section, VI.A.1, we have revised 

§ 160.203 to make it clear that visits to 

ports or places on the OCS other than 

deepwater ports will not directly trigger 

33 CFR part 160, subpart C, NOAD 

requirements; see NOA OCS regulations 

in 33 CFR part 146 that point to 

regulations in 33 CFR part 160. For 

example, § 146.405 refers to information 

specified in 33 CFR Table 160.206. To 

increase awareness of 33 CFR part 146 

NOA OCS requirements, we have added 

a note to § 160.201 referring to these 

requirements. 

14. Miscellaneous 

On January 21, 2009, we published a 

notice (74 FR 3534) announcing a March 

5, 2010, public meeting to be held in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5305 

Washington, DC. Several commenters 

requested that we schedule an 

additional public meeting in the Pacific 

Northwest because west coast 

international transportation companies, 

including international ferry operators, 

are located there and it was impractical 

for small companies or Washington 

State Ferry officials to attend the public 

meeting in Washington, DC. We 

received an additional request to hold 

meetings in the Southwest, MidContinental/Mid-West, and the Atlantic 

Northeast. 

As noted above, we held one public 

meeting in Washington, DC, and another 

public meeting in Seattle, WA. We 

believe those two opportunities for the 

public to submit oral comments were 

sufficient, particularly given the 4- 

month period we provided the public in 

which to submit written comments. 

Also, we made audio recordings of these 

two public meetings, and made the 

recordings available online to the public 

via a link in the docket to audio-digital 

(MP3) files. These recordings allowed 

those who could not attend either 

meeting to listen to what was said at 

each meeting before the end of the 

comment period. 

One commenter recommended 

amending NOAD rules to allow inland 

vessels to submit NOAs to a single 

common authority—specifically to 

allow any barge or towing vessel that 

operates on the inland and intracoastal 

waterways above or below Mississippi 

River mile 235 to be classified as inland 

and to report to the IRVMC, rather than 

the NVMC. The commenter stated that 

NOA requirements call for information 

from inland vessel operators that is 

inapplicable to their operations and of 

no material value for national security. 

Further, the commenter stated that this 

information is impractical and useless 

as applied to inland vessels, particularly 

if the reporting vessel operates below 

mile 235 on the Lower Mississippi River 

or the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and 

needs to report to both NVMC and 

IRVMC. 

In our NPRM, we proposed to revise 

the current NOA exemption in 

§ 160.203(a)(3) that applies to all vessels 

operating upon the Mississippi River 

between its sources and mile 235, 

Above Head of Passes, and certain 

tributaries, so that this exemption 

would apply only to vessels required by 

33 CFR 165.830 or 165.921 to report to 

IRVMC. The comment period on the 

NPRM closed April 15, 2009, but on 

January 10 and 18, 2011, the 

Commanders of the Eighth and Ninth 

Coast Guard Districts, respectively, 

published rules that stayed IRVMC 

reporting requirements for barges loaded 

with CDC on inland rivers in the Eighth 

Coast Guard District and a portion of the 

Illinois Waterway System located in the 

Ninth Coast Guard District. These stays 

were extended and now last until 

December 31, 2015. See 76 FR 1360, 

January 10, 2011, 76 FR 2827, January 

18, 2011, 78 FR 25, January 2, 2013, 78 

FR 4788, January 23, 2013, 78 FR 60216, 

October 1, 2013, and 78 FR 61183, 

October 3, 2013. 

In this final rule, where the revised 

exemption is redesignated as 

§ 160.204(a)(3), after December 31, 2015, 

a vessel required to report under 

§§ 165.830 or 165.921 would not also be 

required under part 160 to submit NOAs 

to NVMC. Until December 31, 2015, 

temporary exemption § 160.204(a)(6) 

will apply to all vessels subject to 

§§ 165.830 or 165.921. During these 

stays in reporting requirements under 

§§ 165.830 or 165.921, Commanders of 

the Eighth and Ninth Coast Guard 

Districts will analyze future reporting 

needs and evaluate possible changes in 

CDC reporting requirements. See 78 FR 

25, January 2, 2013, and 78 FR 4788, 

January 23, 2013, 78 FR 60216, October 

1, 2013, and 78 FR 61183, October 3, 

2013. 

The IRVMC actively tracked the 

movement of CDC barges on inland 

rivers in the §§ 165.830 or 165.921 

regulated navigation areas in Coast 

Guard Districts Eight and Nine, 

respectively, and analyzed data from 

Fleeting Area Managers. The NOA 

information and timing of submission of 

NOAs under 33 CFR part 160, which is 

a primary source of data for ships 

arriving from foreign ports or places, 

presents different burdens than the 

now-stayed IRVMC reporting 

requirements under §§ 165.830 or 

165.921. Compare, for example, 

§§ 160.206 and 160.212 of this final rule 

with stayed reporting requirements in 

§ 165.830(d), (e), and (f), or § 165.921(d), 

(e), and (f). This final rule has been 

written so that Commanders of Eighth 

and Ninth Coast Guard Districts may 

continue to analyze reporting needs 

from vessels moving CDC barges on 

inland rivers in their districts, without 

subjecting those vessels subject to 

§ 165.830 or § 165.921 to NOAD 

requirements under 33 CFR part 160. 

As for reporting to a single common 

authority, this final rule does not 

control where District Eight and Nine 

RNA regulations may require vessels 

subject to those regulations to report. 

But as for vessels operating below mile 

235 on the Lower Mississippi River, on 

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, or on 

other waters where they are subject to 

33 CFR part 160 NOAD requirements, 

the information we require is needed to 

meet our PWSA regulatory objectives of 

obtaining information necessary to help 

enhance the safety and security of U.S. 

ports and waterways and to enhance 

vessel traffic management. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Coast Guard issue a secure, World Wide 

Web-based report showing vessels 

cleared for arrival and that it use a 

uniform NOAD verification process 

with each Coast Guard COTP’s 

Homeland Security group’s screening of 

NOADs submitted and cleared by the 

NVMC. The commenter noted that it is 

beneficial to know whether additional 

information or a vessel boarding is 

required by the port’s Homeland 

Security Office well in advance of the 

vessel’s arrival so that time management 

impacts to the vessel’s Master and crew 

can be minimized and the vessel can 

proactively communicate any 

prospective delays to the terminal or 

refinery waiting for its arrival. 

Once the NVMC receives an NOA, an 

email is sent to the submitter if the 

NOAD is not accepted. However, vessels 

are not ‘‘cleared’’ by the NVMC. 

Regarding advance notice of boarding, it 

is at the COTP’s discretion to determine 

notification times if a boarding is to 

occur. Under authority of 33 U.S.C. 

1223 and 33 CFR 160.111, a District 

Commander or COTP may place 

operational controls on a vessel when 

he or she— 

• Has reasonable cause to believe the 

vessel is not in compliance with any 

regulation, law, or treaty; 

• Determines that the vessel does not 

satisfy the conditions for vessel 

operation and cargo transfers specified 

in § 160.113; or 

• Determines that the vessel warrants 

such controls in the interest of safety 

due to weather, visibility, sea 

conditions, temporary port congestion, 

other temporary hazardous 

circumstances, or the vessel’s condition. 

Also, under 46 U.S.C. 70110, the 

Secretary may establish conditions of 

entry for ships coming from a foreign 

port that she or he has found does not 

maintain effective antiterrorism 

measures, and may deny entry to vessels 

that do not meet these conditions. 

However, we do not clear vessels for 

arrival. 

The CBP’s regulation 19 CFR 4.7 

references a ‘‘Vessel Entrance or 

Clearance Statement,’’ Customs Form 

1300. Under 19 CFR 4.3, certain vessels 

are required to make formal entry on 

their arrival at a U.S. port or place. The 

CBP may grant clearance for a vessel to 

depart a U.S. port or place. See 19 CFR 

4.60, 4.61 and 4.95; re CBP clearance 

related to departures, see 19 CFR 4.63 

and 4.75. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

One commenter noted that his 

company operates more than 50 

chemical tankers and has a similar 

amount on time charter, that it operates 

worldwide, that its tankers can carry up 

to 52 separate bulk liquid cargoes on 

board, that its vessels go to various U.S 

terminals and take on specific cargoes, 

and that with two crews for each vessel, 

the company has 100 Masters and at 

least 100 chief mates that it has to 

educate on NOAD procedures. 

According to the commenter, the 

company experiences inconsistent and 

confusing procedures on a regular basis, 

particularly with regard to the way 

regulations are applied by Coast Guard 

field units. The commenter noted at a 

public meeting in Washington, DC that 

there had been comments made there to 

the effect that the rules are pretty clear, 

but that when you get down to the field 

unit, particularly with security 

concerns, the regulations in the code are 

not applied universally throughout the 

country, particularly in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

We are working to ensure consistent 

application of the NOAD regulations 

throughout all U.S. ports. Different 

responses by COTPs to NOAD data 

submitted for a given vessel may reflect 

different priorities based on different 

factors in COTP zones. Questions 

pertaining to NOAD regulations and the 

application of those regulations should 

be directed to the Office of Vessel 

Activities NOA Program Manager. 

Contact information is available on the 

eNOAD World Wide Web site. 

One commenter stated that, despite 

regular NVMC upgrades, some in the 

industry have been forced to use thirdparty contractors to comply with NOA 

requirements. The commenter noted 

that this means every report is handled 

twice—once aboard the vessel and once 

by a contractor—and thus there is twice 

the opportunity for errors. 

We note that an NOA can be 

submitted directly to the NVMC via the 

eNOAD World Wide Web application or 

by email. If a vessel chooses to use a 

third-party contractor, that is at the 

vessel owner’s discretion, but the vessel 

owner retains responsibility for the 

accuracy of the information. 

One commenter stated that when 

small changes are made to forms or 

notices, errors may go undetected 

because of the massive amount of 

information that is asked for time and 

time again, and be repeated on every 

required form. The commenter noted 

these errors can result in cumulative 

penalties. The commenter stated that his 

company has experienced penalties 

from the CBP—specifically 

immigration—for crew-caused typing 

errors, and that if the company is doing 

multiple crew reporting and makes one 

error, then submits that copied form five 

times, it has now subjected itself to five 

times the penalties because the error 

appears on five copies. 

We cannot speak to CBP or other 

agency practices as they pertain to 

penalties resulting from typing errors. 

We note, however, that a requirement in 

§ 160.208 as proposed stated that 

whenever events cause submitted NOA 

information to become inaccurate, 

vessels must submit an update within 

the times required in § 160.212. Based 

on this comment, however, we are 

revising that regulatory text to make 

clear that the owner, agent, Master, 

operator, or person in charge of the 

vessel must submit an update within the 

times required any time events cause 

the submitted data to become inaccurate 

or the submitter realizes that the data 

initially submitted were inaccurate. As 

noted previously, however, if the 

estimated time of arrival is the only data 

element that becomes inaccurate and 

the new estimate is less than 6 hours off 

from the original estimate, then the 

owner, agent, Master, operator, or 

person in charge need not submit an 

update. Also under § 160.208(b), such 

persons need not file updates to correct 

the vessel location or position of the 

vessel at the time of reporting, or to 

report changes to crewmembers’ 

positions or duties on the vessel. 

One commenter stated that there is 

currently a 6-hour window during 

which, if a vessel’s anticipated arrival 

time is within plus or minus 6 hours, no 

update is required. However, the 

commenter noted, there are some new 

provisions in the NPRM that would 

require the vessel to submit an update 

within 12 hours, which would not be 

practical. 

We note that the requirement for 

submitting an update is the same as the 

current requirement for a vessel whose 

remaining voyage is less than 24 hours, 

with the exception of U.S. vessels 300 

gross tons or less. See §§ 160.208 and 

160.212(b)(3). We have made no 

changes from the proposed rule based 

on this comment. 

One commenter stated that there was 

a need for greater specificity in the 

regulatory language to avoid confusion 

when all of the provisions of the rule are 

put into practice, and to ensure that the 

Coast Guard is truly meeting the 

congressional intent with regards to 

security. 

As reflected in many of the changes 

we made from the proposed regulatory 

text, including adding definitions and 

specifying vessels that may use AIS 

Class B to satisfy AIS requirements, we 

have taken steps to ensure that this final 

rule is clear and specific. Also, in the 

preamble, we repeatedly link NOA 

requirements in this final rule with 

PWSA statutory objectives of helping to 

enhance the safety and security of U.S. 

ports and waterways. 

One commenter stated that the Coast 

Guard correctly exempted OSVs from 

NOAD requirements. The commenter 

noted that this reflects both the past 

coverage of these vessels under NOA 

and the many years of an exemption and 

practices that have shown that these 

vessels do not represent a significant 

security concern. The commenter also 

noted that the existing exemption 

reflects our recognition that these 

vessels make so many transits that 

tracking all of their arrivals and 

departures would create a burden on 

both the Coast Guard and the industry. 

The commenter further stated, however, 

that there are discussions both in 

Congress and internally in the Coast 

Guard over raising tonnage limits on 

OSVs, and expressed hope that the 

Coast Guard’s definition would not lock 

this into a separate standard for OSVs 

than might eventually come out of that 

process. 

In the NPRM we proposed adding a 

definition of ‘‘offshore supply vessel,’’ a 

term we use in exemption 

§ 160.204(a)(1), based on the 46 U.S.C. 

2101(19) definition. In 2010, that 

statutory definition was amended by 

section 617 of the Coast Guard 

Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

281). For reasons stated in the 

‘‘Summary of Changes from NPRM’’ 

discussion, Section V, we did not create 

a part 160 definition of ‘‘offshore supply 

vessel,’’ but instead simply relied on the 

introductory language in the definition 

section, § 160.202, which adopts 46 

U.S.C. 2101(19) definitions for 

otherwise undefined terms. This 

revision does not lock OSVs into a 

separate NOAD standard. Revisions to 

OSV-specific regulations based on a 

statutory change in OSV tonnage limits 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Finally, while not in response to a 

comment, we delayed making any 

amendments to 33 CFR part 160 

effective until April 30, 2015. We 

selected this date 90 days after 

publication to ensure that we have 

changes to the eNOAD application 

thoroughly tested and in place before 

the effective date. 

B. Automatic Identification System 

In the NPRM, we used 12 categories 

to describe our proposed revisions to 

AIS regulations. See 73 FR 76304–05, 

December 16, 2008. For this final rule, 

we used a different set of categories to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5307 

group and discuss comments we 

received on the AIS portion of the 

NPRM. These 11 categories are: 

Applicability, Broader Use of AIS, 

Expanding AIS Carriage, 

Impracticability, AIS and Nationwide 

AIS, Fishing Industry Concerns, AIS 

Class B, AIS Displays and Integration, 

Installation Period, AIS Pilot Plug, and 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

1. Applicability 

Some comments received in 

opposition to the proposed AIS rule 

questioned the need for it, its benefits, 

and whether it should be applicable to 

the commenter’s type of vessel (e.g., 

sailing vessels and tenders), operation 

(e.g., marine assistance), or operating 

area (e.g., rivers). The Marine 

Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 

2002 is our enabling statute that directs 

which vessels will be required to install 

and use AIS. This statute specifies selfpropelled commercial vessels of at least 

65 feet overall in length and towing 

vessels of more than 26 feet overall in 

length and 600 horsepower. See 46 

U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) and (C). In 

addition, MTSA directs the Secretary to 

require AIS on vessels ‘‘carrying more 

than a number of passengers for hire as 

determined by the Secretary’’ and 

vessels for which the Secretary finds 

AIS ‘‘is necessary for the safe navigation 

of the vessel.’’ See 46 U.S.C. 

70114(a)(1)(B) and (D). In this final rule 

we have included the following selfpropelled vessels under MTSA 

provisions in 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(B) 

and (D) that do provide some discretion 

to the Secretary: 

• Vessels (less than 65 feet in 

registered length) that are certificated to 

carry more than 150 passengers— 

whether or not the passengers are for 

hire. 

• Vessels engaged in dredging 

operations in or near a commercial 

channel or shipping fairway in a 

manner likely to restrict or affect the 

navigation of other vessels; and 

• Vessels engaged in the movement of 

CDC or flammable or combustible liquid 

cargo in bulk. 

Given the nature of their operation, 

these vessels pose a unique challenge to 

navigation, and we have determined 

that AIS is necessary for the safe 

navigation of these vessels. 

Since 1972, a similar group of vessels 

has been required by the Vessel Bridgeto-Bridge Radiotelephone Act (Pub. L. 

92–63) and implementing regulations to 

have radiotelephones while navigating. 

See 33 U.S.C. 1201–1208 and 33 CFR 

part 26. The primary purpose of the 

Radiotelephone Act is navigation safety, 

an objective that it shares with MTSA. 

Together, the Radiotelephone Act and 

MTSA AIS implementing regulations 

provide a synergy that enhances 

situational awareness and could 

mitigate the risk of collisions and other 

mishaps, such as a collision with a 

vessel carrying passengers, a vessel 

engaged in dredging near a commercial 

channel, or one moving hazardous 

cargo. Data from AIS provide the 

telephone equivalent of ‘‘caller ID,’’ 

which can greatly facilitate 

radiotelephone communication, 

reducing the time required to establish 

a joint plan for avoiding collisions. 

We have placed AIS applicability 

provisions from both the final rule and 

the current CFR adjacent to each other 

in the following derivation and 

comparison table so that you may 

quickly identify changes this final rule 

is introducing that may impact your 

vessel or company. Further details, 

including costs and impacts, are 

provided in the regulatory analysis. 

TABLE 2—AIS DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND CORRESPONDING CURRENT APPLICABILITY

PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR 164.46 

Final rule paragraph in 

33 CFR 164.46 Text 

Corresponding paragraph currently in 

33 CFR 164.46 

Text 

(b)(1) ..................... AIS Class A device. The following vessels 

must have on board a properly installed, 

operational Coast Guard type-approved 

AIS Class A device:.

(a) ............................... The following vessels must have a properly 

installed, operational, type approved AIS as 

of the date specified. 

(i) ................... A self-propelled vessel of 65 feet or more in 

length, engaged in commercial service.

(1) & (3)(i) ........... (a)(1) Self-propelled vessels of 65 feet or 

more in length, other than passenger and 

fishing vessels, in commercial service and 

on an international voyage, not later than 

December 31, 2004. 

(a)(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section, the following vessels, 

when navigating an area denoted in Table 

161.12(c) of § 161.12 of this chapter, not 

later than December 31, 2004: (i) Self-propelled vessels of 65 feet or more in length, 

other than fishing vessels and passenger 

vessels certificated to carry less than 151 

passengers-for hire, in commercial service; 

(ii) .................. A towing vessel of 26 feet or more in length 

and more than 600 horsepower, engaged 

in commercial service; 

(3)(ii) .................... Towing vessels of 26 feet or more in length 

and more than 600 horsepower, in commercial service. 

(iii) ................. A vessel that is certificated to carry more 

than 150 passengers.

(3)(iii) ................... Passenger vessels certificated to carry more 

than 150 passengers-for-hire. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—AIS DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND CORRESPONDING CURRENT APPLICABILITY

PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR 164.46—Continued 

Final rule paragraph in 

33 CFR 164.46 Text 

Corresponding paragraph currently in 

33 CFR 164.46 

Text 

(iv) ................. A self-propelled vessel engaged in dredging 

operations in or near a commercial channel 

or shipping fairway in a manner likely to restrict or affect navigation of other vessels.

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(v) .................. A self-propelled vessel engaged in the movement of—(A) Certain dangerous cargo as 

defined in subpart C of part 160 of this 

chapter, or (B) Flammable or combustible 

liquid cargo in bulk that is listed in 46 CFR 

30.25–1, Table 30.25–1.

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(b)(2) ..................... AIS Class B device. Use of a U.S. Coast 

Guard type-approved AIS Class B device 

in lieu of an AIS Class A device is permissible on the following vessels if they are 

not subject to pilotage by other than the 

vessel Master or crew: 

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(i) ................... Fishing industry vessels .................................. ..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(ii) .................. Vessels identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section that are certificated to carry less 

than 150 passengers, and that—(A) Do not 

operate in a VTS or VMRS area defined in 

Table 161.12(c) of § 161.12 of this chapter, 

and (B) Do not operate at speeds in excess of 14 knots; and 

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(iii) ................. Vessels identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of 

this section engaged in dredging operations 

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(c) ......................... SOLAS provisions. The following self-propelled vessels must comply with International Convention for Safety of Life at 

Sea (SOLAS), as amended, Chapter V, 

regulation 19.2.1.6 (Positioning System), 

19.2.4 (AIS Class A), and 19.2.3.5 (Transmitting Heading Device) or 19.2.5.1 (Gyro 

Compass) as applicable (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 164.03): 

(2) ........................ Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the following, self-propelled vessels, 

that are on an international voyage must 

also comply with SOLAS, as amended, 

Chapter V, regulation 19.2.1.6, 19.2.4, and 

19.2.3.5 or 19.2.5.1 as appropriate (Incorporated by reference, see § 164.03): 

(1) .................. A vessel of 300 gross tonnage or more, on 

an international voyage 

(2)(ii)–(iv) ............. (ii) Tankers, regardless of tonnage, not later 

than the first safety survey for safety equipment on or after July 1, 2003; (iii) Vessels, 

other than passenger vessels or tankers, of 

50,000 gross tonnage or more, not later 

than July 1, 2004; and 

(iv) Vessels, other than passenger vessels or 

tankers, of 300 gross tonnage or more but 

less than 50,000 gross tonnage, not later 

than the first safety survey for safety equipment on or after July 1, 2004, but no later 

than December 31, 2004. 

(2) .................. A vessel of 150 gross tonnage or more, when 

carrying more than 12 passengers on an 

international voyage 

(2)(i) ..................... Passenger vessels, of 150 gross tonnage or 

more, not later than July 1, 2003. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5309 

2. Broader Use of AIS 

We recognize that AIS will not 

overcome all challenges to maritime 

transportation safety or prevent all 

transportation security incidents. It is, 

however, the most effective tool 

currently available to enhance a 

mariner’s situational awareness and our 

own MDA. When using AIS, pertinent 

real-time, digital navigation information 

can be autonomously and continuously 

exchanged between AIS-equipped 

vessels. AIS not only provides a 

position (in a manner similar to radar), 

but it also provides vessel data (e.g., 

dimensions, type, call-sign, destination, 

ETA, navigation status) that are 

difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain 

visually and that would be burdensome, 

cumbersome, and distracting to 

exchange via voice communications. 

Additionally, AIS is currently the only 

effective means of providing real-time 

electronic navigation chart information 

from shore to ship via the broader use 

of AIS Application Specific Messaging 

(ASM), the ‘‘smart phone’’ applications 

for AIS. These applications use a 

common message type which can be 

processed by most AIS stations. 

However, embedded within the message 

are specific navigation- and safetyrelated data that are not available via 

other AIS messages or other existing 

marine safety information systems 

(Notice to Mariners, NAVTEX for 

delivery of navigational and 

meteorological warnings and forecasts, 

etc.). These messages can provide a 

more dynamic detail to information that 

is traditionally conveyed by slower 

means: chart updates, (e.g., new 

navigation hazards), printed notices to 

mariners, navigation publications and 

directives, meteorological and 

hydrographic Web sites, and more. 

Because this information, like all AIS 

data, is digital, it can easily be decoded 

and portrayed on multiple navigation 

devices, such as electronic charts, radar, 

and multi-function displays. In the near 

future, we expect to design and develop 

ASM to augment or replace some other 

types of reporting, including potentially 

eNOAD, IRVMC, and right whale 

sightings. 

In 2010, in Safety of Navigation 

Circular 289, the IMO adopted a 

compendium of ASM that promises to 

greatly enhance AIS utility and 

navigation safety. These ASM 

applications will provide: exchange, 

reporting, and broadcast of 

environmental, meteorological, and 

hydrological data, as is currently being 

done on the St. Lawrence Seaway, 

Tampa Bay, and VTS Sault Ste. Marie, 

and is envisioned for more waterways; 

data on dangerous cargo and/or persons 

on board; port clearance and berthing 

information; data on mandatory and 

recommended routes; extended vessel 

static and voyage related data; VTS 

broadcast of targets representing vessels 

with or without AIS but beyond the 

range (e.g., around a bend) of other AIS 

vessels; and pertinent time-critical 

dynamic navigation information 

concerning a specified geographic area, 

polygon or position. 

We are working closely and diligently 

with the Committee on the Maritime 

Transportation System (CMTS) (see eNavigation Integrated Action Team at 

http://www.cmts.gov/Activities/

ActionTeams.aspx) and other Federal 

agencies, such as the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to 

expand the development and ensure the 

consistency of ASM throughout the 

United States. Accordingly, we have 

added to this final rule a new provision 

in § 164.46(d)(4) to ensure that in the 

United States, only the use of 

‘‘applications adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization 

(such as, IMO SN.1/Circ.289) or those 

denoted in the International Association 

of Marine Aids to Navigation and 

Lighthouse Authorities’ (IALA) ASM 

Collection for use in the United States 

or Canada’’ is permissible. Moreover, 

§ 164.46(d)(4) notes that an individual 

application transmission is limited to no 

more than one every minute. 

Some commenters lauded these 

benefits and the benefits of AIS in 

general, and requested we extend AIS 

applicability to other vessels (e.g., all 

vessels that interact with seagoing 

vessel traffic). While we strongly 

encourage the use of AIS, we recognize 

that not all vessels can achieve the full 

benefit of AIS because of their unique 

nature (e.g., submarines) or mode of 

operations (e.g., fleeting area). To 

accommodate these situations, we 

provide a means for individual 

operators to request a deviation from 

AIS carriage requirements in 33 CFR 

164.46(h). In response to comments, we 

have extended this provision to include 

vessels whose design (e.g., submarines 

or vessels with an open or exposed 

cabin), construction, or outfitting (e.g., a 

vessel without electrical power) makes 

it impracticable to operate an AIS. See 

33 CFR 164.46(h)(4). Further, to 

alleviate the administrative burden on 

industry and the Coast Guard, and at the 

same time recognize that situations may 

change in the future, we have extended 

the allowable deviation period from 1 to 

5 years. See § 164.46(h). 

Numerous commenters questioned 

adopting the threshold of 50-or-more 

passengers for requiring AIS. One 

commenter stated that the Coast Guard 

has not justified the requirement for 

passenger vessels with the capacities of 

between 50 and 150 passengers to carry 

AIS and that such a requirement would 

not diminish the potential threats to the 

U.S. marine transportation system that 

the Coast Guard described. We believe 

requiring AIS on vessels certificated to 

carry more than 50 passengers would 

help diminish threats to the U.S. 

maritime transportation system, but 

based on our analysis of the cost and the 

lack of benefits of such a requirement, 

we have abandoned the lower threshold 

we proposed. 

We did describe a number of 

maritime-related terrorist events in the 

NPRM (see 73 FR 76296, December 16, 

2008), but we did not claim that AIS 

alone would prevent those or future 

incidents. We stated that these incidents 

called attention to the vulnerability of 

the United States to potential terrorist 

attacks, and that U.S. waterways and 

ports present both vulnerable and 

attractive targets. See 73 FR 76297. All 

vessels that carry passengers are 

potential terrorist targets and may also 

provide a means of transportation for 

terrorists; particularly because 

passengers may board the vessel 

without having to go through thorough 

background checks required of some 

crewmembers. 

AIS is the only digital source of data 

the Coast Guard and other federal 

agencies have to gain a comprehensive 

real-time understanding of activities in 

our maritime domain, with the tools 

currently available on most vessels (i.e., 

radar or ECS), which thus improves our 

ability to prevent and respond to 

transportation security and safety 

incidents. For example, if we learn that 

passenger vessels have been targeted or 

that one is involved in a distress 

situation, we are more readily able to 

locate the specific position and course 

of these vessels and mitigate the 

consequences of an incident, and, are 

also more readily able to share that 

information with others. 

The commenter specifically noted 

that when promulgating current AIS 

regulations in 2003, the Coast Guard 

determined that passenger vessels 

carrying 150 or fewer passengers do not 

pose a significant risk of a 

transportation security incident and 

therefore did not require such vessels to 

develop Coast Guard-approved vessel 

security plans, and that nothing in the 

NOAD AIS NPRM has changed the 

conclusion of very low security risk in 

the National Risk Assessment Tool (N– 

RAT) published in the 2003 

Implementation of National Maritime 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Security Initiatives temporary interim 

rule. See 68 FR 39246, July 1, 2003. 

Based on that N–RAT analysis, 

however, we did not conclude that 

vessels carrying less than 150 

passengers were risk free. As we 

previously stated; however, based on 

public comments and to reduce costs on 

industry and small entities, we have set 

the passenger threshold for AIS carriage 

in this final rule to those vessels 

certificated to carry more than 150 

passengers. 

The commenter also noted that in a 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC)—Reader 

Requirements advance NPRM (74 FR 

13360, March 27, 2009) the Coast Guard 

identified vessels that carry less than 

500 passengers as being in the lowest 

risk category. In that ANPRM, which 

focused on identification for mariners, 

we did note, however, the potential for 

such vessels to be involved in a 

transportation security incident. See 74 

FR 13366. A transportation security 

incident means a security incident 

resulting in a significant loss of life, 

environmental damage, transportation 

system disruption, or economic 

disruption in a particular area. 

The commenter also questions the 

need for AIS for navigation safety for 

vessels between 50 and 150 passengers 

and notes that of the injuries, deaths, 

and barrels of oil spilled the Coast 

Guard noted that might have been 

prevented by the use of AIS, that there 

is no apportionments as to vessel 

service and that the preponderance of 

waterways associated with these 

casualties are not typically used by 

passenger vessels generally and those 

carrying 50 to 150 passengers 

specifically. Given this, and the 

commenter’s own experience, the 

commenter concluded that the 

contribution by passenger vessels to 

those accident and casualty totals is 

negligible or non-existent. Finally, the 

commenter quotes from a Coast Guard 

report on passenger safety on vessels 

under 1000 gross tons based on 1992– 

2003 data and notes the report states 

that 81.2 percent of casualties were not 

related to the operation of a vessel, and 

that fatalities were rare and when 

grouped by type of accident, there were 

no trends or patterns. 

As previously noted, in this final rule 

we are not adopting the threshold of 50 

or more passengers we proposed in the 

NPRM. We have adopted a threshold of 

more than 150 passengers in 

§ 164.46(b)(1)(iii) of this final rule that 

is similar to our current passenger-forhire threshold, but we did not retain the 

‘‘for-hire’’ qualifier. We found no 

passenger vessels outside of VTS areas 

affected by the AIS portion of this final 

rule that are less than 65 feet in length 

and carry more than 150 passengers. All 

passenger vessels we found to be 

affected by this final rule are included 

in the 65-feet-or-more category. This 

approach, which is based on authority 

in 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(B) & (D) and 

covers vessels certificated to carry more 

than 150 passenger—whether for forhire or not, is similar to that taken in 

SOLAS which does not use ‘‘for-hire’’ 

when establishing a passenger vessel 

threshold. 

SOLAS Regulation V.19.2.4 requires 

AIS on all passenger ships regardless of 

size or type of voyage. Under SOLAS 

any vessel carrying more than 12 

passengers is a ‘‘passenger ship.’’ See 

SOLAS Regulation I.1(f). This AIS 

SOLAS provision reflects the objective 

of SOLAS which is to promote the 

safety of life at sea. We have exercised 

tonnage-threshold discretion under 

SOLAS to enable us to set our MTSAbased passenger threshold at more than 

150. 

As proposed, we eliminated the 

distinction of ‘‘for hire’’ from the types 

of vessels that are required to have AIS 

because we believe the safety benefits of 

AIS should extend beyond vessels 

carrying passengers for hire that are, 

nonetheless, under the MTSA threshold 

of 65 feet in length. In doing so, we 

ensure that this provision of the final 

rule will cover all small passenger 

vessels and ferries in commercial 

service that are certificated to carry 

more than 150 passengers. 

Some commenters requested that we 

exempt certain waterways, as we are 

authorized to do under MTSA. See 46 

U.S.C. 70114(a)(2)(B). While we agree 

that there might be waterways where the 

full benefit of AIS may not be realized— 

e.g., only one vessel using AIS on that 

waterway, we do not favor a patchworkof-waterways approach because 

situations for a given waterway may 

change. Because AIS is designed to 

provide an effective means for multiple 

users to exchange vessel navigation 

information, independent of the 

waterway where it is used, its benefit is 

proportional to the number of users and 

not necessarily the area of use. 

Therefore, rather than exempt specific 

waterways where there might be a small 

number of users, we have specified an 

exception in § 164.46(h)(3) for vessels 

that are not likely to encounter other 

AIS-equipped vessels. AIS can also 

provide valuable information in certain 

waterways even where there is a 

likelihood of encountering only one 

other vessel with AIS—for example, 

rounding a bend and other situations 

where other sensors, such as radar, may 

not detect the other vessel as soon. 

One commenter stated that we failed 

to provide support for our assertion in 

our NPRM that passenger vessels added 

by the 50-passenger threshold would 

not be uniquely impacted. The 

commenter stated that nearly all 

passenger vessels of less than 65 feet 

that carry 50 to 150 passengers are 

operated by small businesses and that 

this segment of the U.S. maritime 

industry is in fact uniquely impacted. 

As previously noted, we have 

abandoned our proposal to reduce the 

threshold of more than 150 passengers 

for AIS carriage to 50 or more 

passengers. In 2003, as part of our initial 

effort to obtain information before 

issuing an NPRM to expand AIS 

applicability beyond what was included 

in our temporary interim rule, we 

solicited responses to questions. See 68 

FR 39369, July 1, 2003. In the preamble 

of the final rule we published that year, 

we specifically mentioned reopening 

the comment period on questions we 

presented in that initial effort as well an 

additional question regarding expanding 

AIS carriage to small passenger vessels. 

See 68 FR 60562, October 22, 2003. In 

an October 2003 notice, we then asked 

for reasons why passenger vessels 65 

feet or more in length that carry less 

than 151 passengers (and fishing vessels 

65 feet or more in length) should be 

treated differently than other 

commercial vessels. See 68 FR 61819, 

October 30, 2003. After reviewing 

comments received in response to the 

questions we published in 2003 and the 

NPRM, we have found that many of 

these vessels may be owned by small 

entities that do not operate year around 

or in areas that are likely to encounter 

other AIS users (e.g., excursion vessels 

in Lake Tahoe). The vessels certificated 

to carry less than 150 passenger 

impacted by § 164.46(b)(1)(i) of this 

final rule, are impacted in a manner that 

is different than the other 5,560 U.S.- 

flag vessels that we estimate will be 

affected by the AIS portion of this final 

rule. Because these passenger vessels 

are greater than 65 feet in length, 46 

U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) dictates that they 

be equipped with and operate AIS. To 

reduce the cost of this requirement, 

however, in § 164.46(b)(2)(ii) we permit 

the use of AIS Class B devices on 

vessels certificated to carry less than 

150 passengers if they do not operate in 

a VTS or VMRS area and do not operate 

at speeds in excess of 14 knots. 

Regarding our separate requirement in 

§ 164.46(b)(1)(iii) for vessels certificated 

to carry more than 150 passengers, we 

decided to maintain the existing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5311 

threshold of more than 150 passengers, 

rather than decrease it to the threshold 

of more than 50 passengers we 

proposed, but we did expand the 

threshold to include any passenger, not 

solely passengers for hire, and, as with 

our other AIS requirements, we 

expanded the threshold to all navigable 

waters. While the Coast Guard believes 

that AIS can be of great benefit to all 

vessels, particularly those carrying 

passengers, we recognize that the 

majority of these vessels that carry less 

than 150 passengers (whether for hire or 

not) would probably request a deviation 

of this final rule because they would 

meet one of more of the exception 

criteria denoted in 33 CFR 164.46(h), 

because they either operate solely 

within a confined area, are on short 

fixed-schedule voyages, or are not likely 

to encounter other AIS-equipped 

vessels. Thus, to mitigate both the 

burden to industry of requesting 

deviations and to the Coast Guard of 

adjudicating a large number of requests, 

we have adopted a threshold of more 

than 150 passengers for all passenger 

vessels, including high-speed passenger 

vessels. As noted above, we did not 

include our separate 12-passenger 

threshold for vessels capable of speeds 

in excess of 30 knots–see § 164.46(b)(4) 

in the NPRM—in this final rule. 

3. Expanding AIS Carriage 

As noted above, we received 

comments asking us to expand AIS 

carriage beyond the population in our 

proposal. Below, we address the 

requests to expand AIS requirements to 

offshore platforms. 

The primary benefit of AIS is to 

provide near real-time dynamic 

information (i.e., position, course, and 

speed); therefore, we do not see the 

need for all fixed charted structures 

such as offshore platforms to have AIS 

for the safe navigation of the vessel. We 

do believe, however, that certain fixed 

structures, based on their position and 

proximity to shipping lanes or safety 

fairways, are sometimes relied upon as 

if they were aids to navigation, and thus 

could benefit from AIS Aids to 

Navigation (AIS AtoN) and could 

enhance MDA and navigation safety. An 

AIS AtoN provides position, name, and 

health status of the aid, such as whether 

or not the aid is on station and watching 

properly. 

Given the advent of AIS AtoN and the 

benefit that these stations may provide 

to the shipboard users required to have 

AIS under this final rule, we have 

amended 33 CFR 62.52, 66.01–1, and 

66.01–5(i) to recognize and allow the 

use of AIS AtoN stations or other 

electronic private aids to navigation. 

Those seeking to deploy an electronic 

private AtoN are required to go through 

the application and approval process set 

forth in 33 CFR part 66 for private aids 

to navigation. 

As for requiring AIS on other vessels 

beyond what we proposed in the NPRM, 

we extended applicability to selfpropelled vessels engaged in the 

movement of flammable or combustible 

liquid cargo in bulk, so we would be 

sure to include vessels moving gasoline 

or propane as cargo. As we previously 

stated, we encourage all commercial 

vessels to equip themselves with AIS. 

However, this final rule requires AIS 

only on those vessels for which we have 

authority to require carriage of AIS; that 

is, for those vessels specifically 

identified in MTSA, and other vessels 

including passenger vessels, that we 

have determined require AIS for the safe 

navigation of the vessel. 

4. Impracticability 

We received various comments on the 

impracticability and safety risk of 

certain AIS provisions in our proposed 

rule. One such example was our 

requirement to maintain AIS in 

operation at all times while a vessel is 

moored, which would require having 

the vessel’s power plant running to 

operate AIS when nobody is on board— 

a practice that we did not intend to 

promote by this rule. In response to this 

comment, we amended § 164.46(d)(2)(v) 

to require AIS to be in operation only 

at least 15 minutes prior to getting 

underway. Similarly, others commented 

on the impracticability of having AIS 

because their vessels lacked an adequate 

power supply (e.g., floating plants) or 

because the vessel’s design made AIS 

use impracticable (e.g., submarines or 

open cabin vessels). 

The focus of MTSA and our rule is to 

require the use of AIS devices on selfpropelled vessels, most of which should 

be capable of properly operating an AIS. 

We recognize, however, that it may be 

impracticable for some vessels to install 

or operate AIS properly or effectively. 

Therefore, we have added paragraph 

(h)(4) to § 164.46 that specifically 

accommodates vessels whose design or 

construction makes it impracticable to 

operate an AIS device (e.g., those that 

lack electrical power, have an exposed 

or open cabin, or are submersible) by 

allowing these vessels to seek up to a 

5-year deviation. Further, we amended 

§ 164.46(b)(1)(iv) to apply only to a 

‘‘self-propelled vessel engaged in 

dredging operations,’’ instead of a 

‘‘dredge or floating plant.’’ This change 

makes it clear that non-self propelled 

dredges or floating plants are not 

required to be outfitted with AIS 

shipboard devices. In so doing, 

however, we note that via the dredging 

permitting process, state authorities and 

the Army Corps of Engineers may 

seek—consistent with amended 

regulations in 33 CFR chapter I, 

subchapter C—to have AIS AtoNs 

installed on certain fixed structures near 

dredging areas when necessary to 

provide greater safety to those 

conducting dredging or transiting the 

area. 

Another impracticability raised by a 

commenter at one of our public 

meetings was a conflict with some of the 

requirements (such as radio antenna 

separation in excess of 30 feet for a 27- 

foot towing vessel) set forth in the IMO 

installation guidelines that our NPRM 

incorporated by reference. The IMO AIS 

requirement and guidelines were 

tailored to large deep-draft seagoing 

vessels and we agree with the 

commenter that some of the IMO AIS 

guidance is impractical for the majority 

of small and shallow-draft vessels 

subject to this final rule. 

The proper installation of modern 

electronics is very important and should 

be done diligently to ensure that all 

equipment operates according to its 

design and purpose and does not 

degrade the use of other equipment (e.g., 

create electromagnetic interference). 

The commenter above who noted the 

conflict created by IMO AIS guidelines 

also brought to our attention the 

standard published by the NMEA. 

The NMEA has for years published 

marine electronic installation standards 

that are widely used and relied upon by 

the industry. The NMEA, which serves 

a broad constituency of deep- and 

shallow-draft vessels, is well aware that 

sometimes different techniques, for 

example, use of thicker or better 

shielded cabling, may be required 

because of the size of the vessel or other 

issues. We have reviewed the AISrelated NMEA Installation Standard and 

find that it provides sound guidance 

where the IMO guidelines may be 

impractical for some installations on 

non-seagoing vessels. Therefore, to 

provide users an alternative and options 

that best serve their vessels, we have 

incorporated the NMEA standard by 

reference and have amended § 164.46(a) 

to include NMEA Installation Standard 

0400–3.10, in the definition of 

‘‘properly installed, operational.’’ 

Although it is not an impracticability, 

certain commenters expressed concerns 

with the requirement to continuously 

upkeep and ensure the accuracy of all 

AIS data fields. Because AIS was 

purposely designed to require minimal 

user interaction, entry for most data 

(e.g., MMSI, vessel name, call-sign, IMO 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

number, type, dimensions, and antenna 

location) is required only once, at the 

time of installation. All AIS dynamic 

data (e.g., position, speed over ground, 

course over ground) are either fed into 

AIS via an external source or derived 

from the device’s internal Global 

Navigation Satellite System, all without 

user interaction. There are, however, 

four AIS ‘‘voyage related’’ data fields 

(i.e., navigation status, destination 

location, estimated time of arrival, and 

static draft) that do require manual 

updating as conditions change. 

To ease the burden and ensure 

consistent and accurate data encoding 

among all AIS users, we have developed 

an AIS Encoding Guide that is available 

at our ‘‘AIS Frequently Asked 

Questions’’ (FAQ #2) page at http://

www.navcen.uscg.gov/

?pageName=AISFAQ. In this guide, 

users are advised to use their maximum 

draft instead of static draft, thus 

eliminating the need to update this 

field. The guide also provides 

formatting conventions that allow ferry 

operators who continuously operate 

between two set locations, or operators 

of vessels that perform ‘‘voyages to 

nowhere’’ (such as workboats, dinner or 

excursion vessels, and certain other 

vessels that operate to and from their 

home berths), to encode their 

‘‘Destination’’ and ‘‘ETA’’ fields only 

once. 

For vessels that operate between 

multiple ports and berths, we have, as 

requested by the U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers and in support of the Federal/ 

Industry Logistics Standardization 

(FILS), adopted the FILS code as the 

unique identifier for their destinations. 

Through our association with the Radio 

Technical Commission for Maritime 

Services (RTCM), we anticipate that this 

uniform coding scheme will be 

embraced by software and charting 

manufacturers and that they will 

develop simpler ways to encode this 

information into AIS and other systems. 

Thus, the only AIS parameter that most 

domestic AIS users must maintain is the 

vessel’s ‘‘navigation status,’’ which 

usually requires only a selection from a 

drop-down menu on the vessel’s AIS, 

and can be easily remembered because 

it will usually require updating only to 

reflect a change in the vessel’s 

navigation lights or day shapes. We 

anticipate that this process will be 

automated in the future when AIS is 

also integrated with the vessel’s 

navigation light controller. See IMO 

Resolution MSC.253(83), ‘‘Performance 

Standard for Navigation Light 

Controllers.’’ 

5. AIS and Nationwide AIS 

Some commenters questioned 

whether we should require AIS in areas 

where we do not have infrastructure in 

place to receive AIS data. First, as noted 

in our NPRM, the use of AIS from vessel 

to vessel may prevent collisions 

wherever it is used and does not require 

the existence of shore-side AIS 

infrastructure to do so. Second, since 

2007, our Nationwide AIS (NAIS) 

project has provided us with AIS 

receive capability throughout the Great 

Lakes, U.S. coastal waters and 

approaches, and in the most congested 

portions of the Western Rivers. In those 

few areas where we do not currently 

have coverage, we anticipate that most 

potential users will avail themselves of 

the waiver process because of the low 

number of users that operate in these 

areas, such as the Colorado and Snake 

Rivers. For further information on NAIS 

and its coverage, visit http://

www.uscg.mil/hq/g-a/Ais/. 

6. Fishing Industry Concerns 

Various commenters questioned the 

need for AIS on fishing vessels, noting 

that these vessels are already being 

tracked by Vessel Monitoring Systems 

(VMS). As we have stated previously (68 

FR 39353, ‘‘Existing AIS-Like 

Systems’’), AIS and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) VMS devices 

are two distinct systems that are not 

interoperable or interchangeable. The 

NMFS VMS is primarily a one-way 

system required by NMFS as a means of 

monitoring and enforcing compliance 

with NMFS requirements. Conversely, 

AIS is a two-way system designed as a 

means for AIS users to exchange 

navigation information for collision 

avoidance, something the NMFS VMS is 

not designed to do. This two-way 

system permits AIS to be both a safety 

and a security tool. 

Some commenters also expressed 

concern about the impact AIS would 

have on disclosing their fishing ’’hot 

spots’’ (i.e., preferred fishing locations). 

Various commenters expressed concerns 

that the use of AIS would cause 

congestion by revealing the locations of 

a fishing vessel’s hot spots. Even if 

analysis of AIS data would somehow 

attract vessels to the same spot, this 

situation would not supersede the 

importance of AIS in providing fishing 

vessels and other operators with 

situational awareness to help safely 

navigate while in close proximity to 

other vessels. For similar reasons, 

existing Navigation Rules specifically 

require any vessel engaged in fishing to 

display distinctive lights or day shapes, 

which indicate to other vessels that the 

fishing vessel may be unable to 

maneuver to avoid collision; AIS simply 

extends the range of this warning. 

7. AIS Class B 

We received numerous replies to our 

solicitation on whether the option to use 

AIS Class B devices to satisfy AIS 

requirements should be discretionary or 

whether we should clearly specify in 

this final rule which vessels may use it 

and on which waterways. Class B 

devices are compatible and less 

expensive than AIS Class A devices, 

but, are not as functional (lack safety 

related text messaging capability), 

powerful (transmit at 2 Watts vice 12.5 

Watts) or versatile (lack interfacing 

options for external sensors or displays). 

For other differences see ‘‘AIS 

Comparison by Class Sheet’’ at http://

www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/AIS_

Comparison_By_Class.pdf. A list of all 

Coast Guard type-approved equipment 

can be found at: https://cgmix.uscg.mil/ 

Equipment/EquipmentSearch.aspx. 

Some commenters favored our decision 

to permit the use of Class B, but felt that 

we should prescribe or clarify who 

could use such devices and where. In 

response to these comments, and to 

decide which vessels should be allowed 

to use Class B devices and where, we 

solicited the assistance of the 

Navigation Safety Advisory Council 

(NAVSAC), a Coast Guard-sponsored 

Federal Advisory Committee chartered 

to provide the Secretary of DHS with 

guidance on navigation safety matters 

through the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard. Members of NAVSAC discussed 

and resolved the matter at their meeting 

in May 2008 (see USCG–2005–21869– 

0106). We agreed, in part, with their 

resolution and have amended 

§ 164.46(b)(2) to clearly prescribe the 

use of U.S. Coast Guard type-approved 

AIS Class B devices in lieu of Class A 

devices on the following vessels if they 

are not subject to pilotage: fishing 

industry vessels (i.e., any vessel engaged 

in the fishing trade), vessels engaged in 

dredging operations, and those vessels 

certificated to carry less than 150 

passengers that do not operate in a Coast 

Guard VTS or VMRS, and that are not 

capable of speeds in excess of 14 knots. 

Class B users operating in excess of 14 

knots travel a much farther distance 

between required position reports than 

Class A users would at any speed. 

Because of this time delay between 

reports, and as brought to our attention 

by some commenters, when viewed on 

a navigation display, fast-moving 

vessels using Class B devices would 

appear to jump from position to 

position, in contrast to a more fluid 

display of vessels using Class A devices. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5313 

While there may be ways to mitigate 

these phenomena, such as dead 

reckoning Class B vessels between their 

30-second position reports, we believe 

that doing so would reduce confidence 

in AIS data. Therefore, we adopted a 14- 

knot threshold that NAVSAC included 

as a threshold for one of its 

recommendations. But we did not, as 

NAVSAC had recommended, extend 

this option to all vessels that travel only 

under 14 knots because we anticipate 

that some of these vessels (e.g., vessels 

towing cargo) will need to use 

application specific messaging for the 

safe navigation of the vessel and such 

messaging is not permitted via AIS Class 

B (e.g., cargo or voyage specific 

reporting to Coast Guard Sectors or 

Army Corp of Engineers lockmasters). 

We did receive a comment 

questioning the use of Class B devices 

in a river environment where channels 

are close to moored vessels and another 

commenter questioned the use of AIS on 

rivers as a navigation tool because they 

asserted it does not take into account 

the change in the speed of the current. 

We note that AIS provides the 

identification and position of a vessel, 

as well as its course over ground and 

speed over ground. When making 

collision avoidance determinations on a 

river or elsewhere, speed over ground 

data is more desirable and reliable than 

speed over water data, which does not 

reflect the impact of a current on the 

vessel’s speed. In § 164.46(b)(2), where 

we specify when AIS Class B may be 

used to satisfy an AIS carriage 

requirement, we have not excluded the 

use of AIS Class B on rivers. 

8. AIS Displays and Integration 

We received various comments 

regarding the installation and 

integration of AIS with other navigation 

equipment and display systems. Some 

stated, correctly, that we did not include 

these costs in our regulatory analysis. 

Our regulatory analysis did not include 

these costs because our NPRM did not 

propose, nor does this final rule require, 

that such displays be used. 

AIS devices consist of a main unit and 

two external antennas for GPS and VHF 

communications. They do not require 

integration with other systems on board. 

However, the main unit of each AIS, by 

design, allows for various interfacing 

options, primarily as outputs that can be 

used with other shipboard systems, 

such as radar, electronic charting 

system, and multi-function displays. 

This interfacing option was not 

included in the installation or unit costs 

because such interfacing is not required 

by AIS, and because we have no means 

of ascertaining how many users would 

avail themselves of this functionality or 

would purchase ancillary equipment. 

Although the prices of AIS have 

dropped since our NPRM, we use the 

same average cost we used then as well 

as the installation costs since we expect 

them to be about the same as our 

estimate in the NPRM. We did not 

receive comments specifically on our 

training estimates and therefore we 

continue to use the estimates as 

presented in the NPRM. Based on our 

estimates and assumptions in the 

NPRM, we use the values below as 

estimates per unit, which includes the 

AIS device, graphical display, 

presentation software, and other 

equipment. 

We have not required this integration 

or specified displays because standards 

have not yet been fully developed to 

ensure the safety and efficacy of such 

integration or presentation options, such 

as addressing screen clutter and target 

filtering. We are working with the 

various standards bodies to see that 

such standards are developed. 

Further, unlike AIS Class A devices, 

AIS Class B devices are not required to 

have a Minimal Keyboard Display 

(MKD) and many are designed with 

their own display systems. 

Consequently, we have amended 

§ 164.46(h)(5) in this final rule so that 

such users are not required to meet the 

provision of § 164.46(d)(2)(ii) to have 

the ‘‘ability to access AIS information 

from the primary conning position.’’ 

9. Installation Period 

Various commenters requested that 

we extend the proposed 7-month 

installation period for vessels not 

currently required to have AIS. We 

recognize that it has been several years 

since we published our NPRM and that 

many vessel owners or operators may 

not have planned or budgeted for this 

requirement. We also recognize that the 

purchase and installation of AIS 

requires proper budgeting and planning; 

therefore, we are amending § 164.46(j) to 

extend the installation period to 12 

months after the effective date of this 

rule (13 months after publication) to 

allow the industry adequate time to 

purchase and install the equipment 

required by this final rule. 

One commenter stated that our 

proposed rule was drafted during a time 

when the assumption was that vessels 

would have installed AIS during 2008 

and AIS would be operational in 2009. 

This commenter requested that we delay 

the effective date until the national 

economy rebounds. Since our NPRM 

was published in 2008, the cost of AIS 

has continued to drop. We have used 

current cost estimates and other 

updated data in our regulatory analysis 

for this final rule. And, as we noted, this 

final rule extends the AIS installation 

date to 12 months after the effective date 

of this rule. 

10. AIS Pilot Plug 

We received various comments 

regarding the requirements for an AIS 

Pilot Plug. The commenters asked 

whether these requirements applied to 

all piloted vessels and to vessels using 

AIS Class B, and whether an extension 

cord was an acceptable receptacle. In 

response to these comments, we 

amended § 164.46(g) in this final rule to 

clarify that the pilot plug must be 

within 3 feet of a permanently affixed 

electrical receptacle, and that these AIS 

pilot plug requirements apply only to 

vessels that embark a pilot. We also 

amended § 164.46(b)(2) in this final rule 

to preclude the use of AIS Class B to 

satisfy § 164.46 requirements if the 

vessel is subject to pilotage by other 

than the vessel Master or crew. 

11. Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

We received a request from a trade 

association and many of its members to 

publish a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in lieu 

of this final rule because they felt that 

we needed more time to properly 

address the cumulative impact of the 

rule and its associated costs, and to have 

it reflect a more current regulatory 

analysis. We have taken the cost 

associated with this rule into 

consideration; please see the regulatory 

analysis on the docket for a discussion 

of the impacts of the rule on the 

industry. We are aware that recently 

issued Coast Guard regulations may 

impose costs on vessels subject to this 

rule. See discussion of our cumulative 

impact assessment of this rule in 

Section VI.A.12 above. In this rule, we 

have sought to impose the least burden 

possible while still meeting our 

regulatory objectives of obtaining 

information necessary to help enhance 

the safety and security of United States 

ports and waterways and to enhance 

vessel traffic management. The industry 

has been provided with ample notice of 

forthcoming requirements and the 

associated cost and impact regarding 

this rule. Although the cost is not 

insignificant, we see no legitimate 

reason to further delay implementation 

of the AIS MTSA directive by issuing an 

SNPRM. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Regulatory Analysis and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. Notice of Arrival and Departure 

We received public comments on the 

duplicative nature of the requirements 

and the inherent redundancy of NOAD. 

As a result, we eliminated our proposed 

NOD requirement. We also received 

public comments from ferry owners and 

operators regarding the burdensome 

nature of the requirements. We agreed 

and we will continue to exempt ferries 

that operate exclusively within the same 

COTP zone that do not carry CDC from 

the NOA requirements of this rule, as 

defined in § 160.204. Ferries that 

operate on a fixed route between two or 

more COTP zones and on a regular 

schedule may submit their schedule and 

other information required under 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(vii) to qualify for an 

NOAD exemption for ferries, which 

reduces the burden on vessel owners 

and operators. We expect the number of 

ferries affected after these exemptions to 

be about 150. 

We received several public comments 

on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) stating that the rule will 

have a disproportionate adverse 

economic effect on owners of vessels of 

300 gross tons or less. In an attempt to 

alleviate some of the burden of the 

NOAD requirements on small entities, 

we have more closely aligned our NOA 

requirement with the CBP electronic 

passenger and crew arrival manifest 

requirements, and we have eliminated 

our proposed NOD requirement. In 

addition, U.S. vessels of 300 gross tons 

or less not carrying CDC and transiting 

two or more COTP zones are exempt 

under 33 CFR 160.204(a)(5)(vi). These 

provisions combined should help to 

reduce the burden on some smaller 

vessel owners and operators. Waivers 

may be granted at a COTP’s discretion 

under 33 CFR 160.214. We also received 

public comments from ferry owners and 

operators stating that ferries should be 

exempted from reporting requirements 

if transiting two or more COTP zones. 

As noted, we agree and established an 

exemption for certain ferries in 

§ 160.204(a)(5)(vii). Public comments 

also suggested maintaining the waiver 

provisions. We agree and have not 

changed the waiver provisions in 

§ 160.214. 

Please note that NOAD cost-andimpact related comments also appear 

above in Sections VI.A.6 (Electronic 

Submission), 10 (Need for NOAD Data 

and Agency Collaboration in Obtaining 

It), and 11 (Scope and Scale). 

2. Automatic Identification System 

We received public comments stating 

that AIS implementation is too costly 

and should not be required for smaller 

vessel owner and operators. Based on 

these comments that AIS would 

adversely affect small vessels owners 

and operators, and our assessment of the 

speed and maneuverability of vessels, 

we made a change from the proposed 

rule that will allow the following 

vessels to meet our AIS carriage 

requirement by installing Class B AIS 

devices, a less costly alternative to Class 

A AIS devices: (1) Fishing industry 

vessels, (2) Vessels that are certificated 

to carry more than 150 passengers, that 

are less than 65 feet in length, that do 

not operate in a VTS or VMRS area 

defined in Table 161.12(c) of § 161.12 of 

this chapter, and that are not capable of 

speeds in excess of 14 knots, and (3) 

self-propelled vessels engaged in 

dredging operations in or near a 

commercial channel or shipping fairway 

in a manner likely to restrict or affect 

navigation of other vessels. 

The Class B AIS device is 

significantly less expensive (average 

unit cost of about $700) than the Class 

A AIS device (average unit cost of about 

$3,230) (see the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis in the docket for more detail 

on cost). This change in the requirement 

will impact about 55 percent of the 

affected population of vessels and 

should alleviate some of the economic 

burden on smaller vessel owners and 

operators. In addition, this final rule 

does not require passenger vessels less 

than 65 feet in length to carry an AIS 

device if they are not certificated to 

carry more than 150 passengers. 

We also received comments on the 

unaddressed associated installation cost 

of an AIS device. An AIS device is a 

standalone device that can function 

without the requirement of integration 

or a retrofit; therefore, we do not expect 

additional installation costs over and 

above the estimates presented in the 

NPRM. We used publicly available 

information to obtain the cost for each 

device. 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material in § 164.46 

for incorporation by reference under 5 

U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of 

the material are available from the 

sources listed in § 164.03. 

VIII. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 14 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

has been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ although not 

economically significant, under section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the final rule has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). A combined final 

Regulatory Analysis and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 

available in the docket as indicated 

under ADDRESSES. A summary of the 

Analysis follows. 

The total cost of this rule over the 10- 

year period of analysis at a 7-percent 

discount rate is $46.5 million, with 

annualized costs of $6.6 million. Over 

98 percent of the estimated costs of this 

rule are a direct result of express 

statutory mandates. 

For the NOA portion of the final rule, 

we estimate the total 10-year discounted 

cost to be about $935,597 using a 7- 

percent discount rate. We estimate the 

annualized cost to be about $133,208 

using a 7-percent discount rate. Of the 

total overall cost for the NOA portion of 

this final rule, 100 percent of the costs 

are discretionary. 

For the AIS portion of this final rule, 

we estimate the total 10-year discounted 

cost to be $46.0 million using a 7- 

percent discount rate, of which 0.15 

percent of the costs are discretionary 

and 99.85 percent of the costs are from 

provisions expressly required by statute. 

We estimate the annualized cost to be 

$6.5 million using a 7-percent discount 

rate. See Table 3. 

We expect benefits of this final rule to 

include improved security, safety and 

environmental protection. The Coast 

Guard believes that this final rule will 

enhance maritime and navigation safety 

through a synergistic effect of NOA and 

AIS, and will strengthen maritime 

security. 

We believe this final rule, through a 

combination of NOA and AIS, will 

strengthen and enhance maritime 

security. Combining the NOA 

requirement with other sources such as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5315 

AIS, we expect the final rule to help us 

form a COP in which vessel-specific 

movements in our ports and waterways 

can be monitored in real time, enabling 

us to filter data from non-compliant 

collection mechanisms such as radar, 

thereby enhancing our ability to rapidly 

detect, identify, and track suspicious 

vessels. 

We assess improvements to maritime 

security qualitatively, resulting from the 

improved quantity and quality of 

information, and enhanced 

communications and MDA. We expect 

quantitative benefits in the form of 

pollution prevented and casualties 

avoided. From our analysis of casualty 

cases over a 15-year period from 1996– 

2010, we estimate that the final rule will 

prevent between 85 and 106 barrels of 

oil from being spilled, at 7- and 3- 

percent discount rates, respectively, 

over the 10-year period of analysis. We 

estimate the value of casualties (deaths, 

injuries) avoided to be between $25.1 

and $31.2 million over the same period 

of analysis, at 7- and 3-percent discount 

rates, respectively. The following table 

provides a comparison of regulatory 

impacts resulting from changes between 

the NPRM and the final rule. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY IMPACT CHANGES BETWEEN NPRM AND FINAL RULE

Category NPRM Final Rule Reason for change 

Compliance Start Date .................... NOAD: Beginning 2009 ................

AIS: Mid 2009 ..............................

NOA: April 30, 2015 .....................

AIS: March 1, 2016 ......................

Extension of compliance start 

date. 

Number of vessels affected ............ NOAD: 30,850 U.S. and foreign ..

AIS: 17,442 U.S. and foreign .......

NOA: 18,377 U.S. and foreign 

vessels.

AIS: 5,922 U.S. and foreign vessels.

Change in applicability, as well as 

improved data analysis, which 

explains why final rule estimates are lower than in NPRM. 

Costs ($ millions, 7-percent discount rate) (U.S. and Foreign 

vessels combined).

NOAD: ..........................................

10-year: $51.3–$69.5 (millions) ...

Annualized: $7.3–$9.7 (millions) ..

NOA: .............................................

Foreign Costs: Mean trips, $0.73– 

$0.89 million (7 and 3 percent).

Decline in NOA costs due to 

elimination of proposed NOD 

requirement, the addition of 

several exemptions and an exception; also existing CBP requirements for electronic submissions allowed us attribute 

the cost of computers to CBP 

regulations. Change in AIS applicability; additional flexibility 

for compliance to include the 

less costly Class B AIS devices 

on certain classes of vessels. 

.................................................. U.S. Costs: Mean trips, $0.20– 

$0.24 million (7 and 3 percent).

AIS: ...............................................

10-year: $130.1 million .................

Annualized: $18.0 million.

.................................................. 10-year: $935,597 ........................

Annualized: $133,208 (above 

NOA costs not in millions).

Total: ............................................

10-year: $181.4–$199.6 (millions) 

Annualized: $25.3–$27.7 (millions).

.................................................. AIS: ...............................................

Foreign Costs: $0.58–$0.69 million (7 and 3 percent).

.................................................. U.S. Costs: $45.0–$53.4 million 

(7 and 3 percent).

.................................................. 10-year: $46.0 million ...................

Annualized: $6.5 million.

.................................................. Total NOA & AIS: .........................

10-year: $46.5 million ...................

Annualized: $6.6 million.

Benefits ($ millions, 7-percent discount rate).NOAD & AIS: Enhanced MDA, 

synergy between both portions 

of rule; improved communication.

NOA & AIS: Enhanced MDA, synergy between both portions of 

rule; improved communication.

Extension of compliance start 

date; change in applicability. 

AIS: ...............................................

10-year: $24.7 million (avoided injuries, fatalities).

Annualized: $3.5 million (avoided 

injuries, fatalities).

136 barrels of oil not spilled (10- 

year).

AIS: ...............................................

10-year: $25.1 million (avoided injuries, fatalities).

Annualized: $3.6 million (avoided 

injuries, fatalities).

85 barrels of oil not spilled (10- 

year).

The Coast Guard is revising the 

applicability of NOA and AIS to include 

more commercial vessels. The NOA 

requirements include: establishing a 

mandatory requirement for electronic 

submission of NOA, and modifying 

reporting content, timeframes, and 

procedures. This final rule will also 

require foreign-flag commercial vessels 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4We estimated the cost per vessel to carry AIS 

(Class A) in the 2003 MTSA final rule to be $9,500 

(undiscounted). Due to decreasing costs of AIS 

units over the past 5–7 years, we estimate the cost 

per vessel to carry AIS (Class A) for this final rule 

to be about $4,500 (undiscounted) per vessel. 

5These figures do not include towing vessels and 

dredges which are accounted for separately below. 

300 gross tons and less to submit NOAs 

when transiting two or more COTP 

zones, will add five additional fields to 

the NOA information requirements (but 

information for two of these fields is 

already required by two Coast Guard 

fields that are being modified), and 

eliminate consolidated NOAs. 

This final rule also updates our 

implementation of SOLAS AIS 

requirements and permits use of AIS 

Class B devices for certain vessels not 

subject to SOLAS to meet § 164.46 AIS 

requirements. It also extends MTSAbased AIS carriage requirements beyond 

the current VTS areas to all U.S. 

navigable waters. The MTSA-based, AIS 

portion of this final rule covers all 

commercial self-propelled vessels 65 

feet or more in length (including fishing 

and passenger vessels), and towing 

vessels at least 26 feet in length and 600 

horsepower. It also includes— 

• Self-propelled vessels engaged in 

dredging operations in or near a 

commercial channel or shipping fairway 

in a manner likely to restrict or affect 

navigation of other vessels, and 

• Vessels moving CDC as defined in 

subpart C of part 160 of this chapter, or 

flammable or combustible liquid cargo 

in bulk. 

• Vessels certificated to carry more 

than 150 passengers. The following 

table describes AIS carriage costs and 

benefits and identifies the source of 

each requirement: 

TABLE 4—AIS CARRIAGE COSTS INCLUDING INITIALIZATION AND UPDATES, AND BENEFITS 4

Vessels required 

by Final Rule to 

have AIS 

Annualized cost 

(7%)/vessel 

population 

Specific MTSA or SOLAS 

source provision 

Coast Guard’s effort to 

minimize cost 

Benefits (quantified benefits 

include all affected vessels) 

Commercial vessels ≥ 65 feet in 

length.

$4.4 million/4,402 

vessels, including 

2,906 fishing vessels.5

Title 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) 

(section 102 of MTSA).

Mandatory; Under this MTSA 

provision, no decision by 

the Secretary is required to 

establish which vessels 

must have AIS.

For all vessels included based on 

MTSA, a deviation of up to 5 

years may be granted for— 

• Vessels that operate solely 

within a very confined area 

(e.g., less than a 1 nauticalmile radius, shipyard, or barge 

fleeting facility); 

• Vessels that conduct only 

short voyages (less than 1 

nautical mile) on a fixed schedule (e.g., a bank-to-bank river 

ferry service or a tender vessel); 

• Vessels that are not likely to 

encounter other AIS-equipped 

vessels; 

• Vessels whose design or construction makes it impracticable to operate an AIS device 

(e.g., those that lack electrical 

power, have an exposed or 

open cabin, or are submersible); or 

• Vessels denoted in paragraph 

(b)(2) that seek a deviation 

from requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (e) of this 

section because their AIS 

Class B device lacks a display.

• Fishing vessels may use an 

AIS Class B unit.

By requiring AIS on the vessels 

listed in this table, this final 

rule provides AIS data that— 

• Enhances situational and maritime domains awareness which 

assists users in traffic management, safety, and security (i.e., 

MDA) decision-making; 

• Enables transportation efficiency by reducing the more 

dramatic ship movements required to avoid collisions when 

in extremis: lower fuel consumption, more reliable scheduling, faster transits; and 

• Improves, as intended by 

SOLAS, collision avoidance, 

vessel traffic services, and, a 

means for authorities to obtain 

info on vessels and their cargoes. 

Quantitative Benefits (all vessels 

classes): 

85–106 barrels of oil not spilled, 

7- and 3-percent discount 

rates, 10-year period of analysis. 

$25.1–$31.2 million in injuries 

and deaths at 7- and 3-percent 

discount rates over 10-year period of analysis, or $3.6 million 

annualized at both discount 

rates. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5317 

TABLE 4—AIS CARRIAGE COSTS INCLUDING INITIALIZATION AND UPDATES, AND BENEFITS 4—Continued 

Vessels required 

by Final Rule to 

have AIS 

Annualized cost 

(7%)/vessel 

population 

Specific MTSA or SOLAS 

source provision 

Coast Guard’s effort to 

minimize cost 

Benefits (quantified benefits 

include all affected vessels) 

Passenger vessels certificated 

to carry more 

than 150 passengers and 

<65 feet in 

length.

0 vessels 6 .............. 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(B) & 

(D).

Discretionary; Under these 

MTSA provisions, a decision by the Secretary is required to establish which 

vessels must have AIS.

Exercised discretion under 

SOLAS not to include all vessels carrying more than 12 

passengers.

MTSA mandate based on DHS 

Secretary passenger-for-hire 

threshold determination. 

SOLAS mandate extends to all 

vessels carrying more than 12 

passengers. DHS determination to adopt a threshold of 

more than 150 passengers 

takes into account the consequences of a transportation 

safety or security incident and 

the impact on small entities.

• Exercised discretion under 

SOLAS not to include all vessels carrying more than 12 

passengers.

• Limited to self-propelled vessels.

• Limited to vessels certificated 

to carry more than 150 passengers.

May use an AIS Class B unit, if 

not in a VTS or VMRS area, 

and not capable of operating 

above 14 knots.

No quantified benefits, since no 

vessels in this category exist in 

our population of vessels. 

Towing vessels ≥ 

26 ft in length 

and 600 hp.

$2.0 million/1,429 

vessels.

46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(C) ......

Mandatory; Under this MTSA 

provision, no decision by 

the Secretary is required to 

establish which vessels 

must have AIS.

...................................................... Although expressly required by 

MTSA, owners and operators 

of these towing vessels accrue 

the same benefits as owners 

and operators all other vessels 

equipped with AIS. Quantified 

benefits included in first category of this table. 

Dredges ............... $0.010 million/17 

vessels.

46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(D) ......

Discretionary; Under this 

MTSA provision, a decision 

by the Secretary is required 

to establish which vessels 

must have AIS.

• Limited to self-propelled vessels.

• Limited to vessels that are engaged in dredging operations 

in or near a commercial channel or shipping fairway in a 

manner likely to restrict or affect navigation of other vessels.

• May use an AIS Class B unit ..

Provides greater awareness to 

vessels engaged in dredging 

near a commercial channel of 

approaching vessels, and provides approaching vessels with 

greater awareness of dredging 

activity, and thus addresses 

the risk of collisions and other 

mishaps involving such vessels. Quantified benefits included in first category of this 

table. 

Vessels engaged 

in the movement of certain 

dangerous 

cargo or flammable or combustible liquid 

cargo in bulk.

nil 7/0 vessels (Vessels included in 

first category of 

this table).

46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(D) ......

Discretionary; Under this 

MTSA provision, a decision 

by the Secretary is required 

to establish which vessels 

must have AIS.

Limited to self-propelled vessels 

of 26 feet or under.

Provides greater awareness to 

vessels carrying CDC of approaching vessels, and provides all other AIS users with 

greater awareness, and thus 

addresses the risk of collisions 

and other mishaps involving 

such vessels. Quantified benefits included in first category of 

this table. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6All passenger vessels certificated to carry more 

than 150 passengers are > 65 feet in length and are 

included in the > 65 feet category above. 

7The analysis assumes that any vessel 

transporting or moving a barge containing CDC falls 

into one of the above categories (e.g., commercial 

vessel ≥ 65 ft; towing vessel ≥ 26 ft & 600 hp). This 

category of vessels is specified in the regulations to 

ensure that in the future, any vessel regardless of 

size/category moving CDC has an AIS unit. 

8This requirement covers the same vessels 

captured by our previous corresponding SOLAS 

requirements, or by MTSA’s requirement for 

commercial vessels ≥ 65 ft in length. 

9This requirement covers the same vessels as our 

existing corresponding SOLAS requirement. 

TABLE 4—AIS CARRIAGE COSTS INCLUDING INITIALIZATION AND UPDATES, AND BENEFITS 4—Continued 

Vessels required 

by Final Rule to 

have AIS 

Annualized cost 

(7%)/vessel 

population 

Specific MTSA or SOLAS 

source provision 

Coast Guard’s effort to 

minimize cost 

Benefits (quantified benefits 

include all affected vessels) 

Vessels ≥300 

gross tonnage, 

on an international voyage.

nil 8/0 vessels ......... SOLAS Art. I, SOLAS, 32 

U.S.T. 47, and the Protocol 

of 1978 relating to SOLAS, 

32 U.S.T. 5577. SOLAS, 

Chapter V, regulation 1.4 

and 19.2.4.

Mandatory; Under this 

SOLAS provision, no decision by the Secretary is required to establish which 

vessels must have AIS.

Use of an AIS Class B Device is 

not permitted under SOLAS.

As a Contracting Government to 

SOLAS, the United States has 

a responsibility to implement 

mandatory SOLAS provisions 

such as these AIS, SOLAS 

Chapter V provisions. 

A vessel of ≥150 

gross tonnage, 

when carrying 

more than 12 

passengers on 

an international 

voyage.

nil 9/0 vessels ......... Same as above ...................... Same as above ........................... Same as above. 

We have placed NOAD applicability 

and exemption provisions from both the 

final rule and the NPRM adjacent to 

each other in the following derivation 

and comparison table so that you may 

quickly identify differences in vessels 

covered by this final rule compared 

with those the NPRM proposed to cover. 

TABLE 5—NOAD DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND NPRM APPLICABILITY AND EXEMPTION

PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR PART 160 

Final rule paragraph in 

33 CFR part 160 Final rule text NPRM paragraph in 33 CFR part 160 Proposed rule text 

§ 160.203(a) ................. This subpart applies to the following vessels 

that are bound for or departing from ports 

or places within the navigable waters of the 

United States, as defined in 33 CFR 

2.36(a), which includes internal waters and 

the territorial seas of the United States, 

and any deepwater port as defined in 33 

CFR 148.5: 

(1) U.S. vessels in commercial service, and 

(2) All foreign vessels. 

§ 160.203(a) ............... This subpart applies to U.S. vessels in commercial service and all foreign vessels that 

are bound for or departing from ports or 

places of the United States. 

§ 160.204(a) ................. NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... § 160.204(a) ............... Except for reporting notice of hazardous conditions, the following vessels are exempt 

from requirements in this subpart: 

(1) ................................ NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... (1) ............................... A passenger or offshore supply vessel when 

employed in the exploration for or in the removal of oil, gas, or mineral resources on 

the continental shelf. 

(2) ................................ NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... (2) ............................... An oil spill response vessel (OSRV) when engaged in actual spill response operations 

or during spill response exercises. 

(3) ................................ After December 31, 2015, a vessel required 

by 33 CFR 165.830 or 165.921 to report its 

movements, its cargo, or the cargo in 

barges it is towing.

(3) ............................... A vessel required by 33 CFR 165.830 or 

165.921 to report to the Inland River Vessel Movement Center (IRVMC). 

(4) ................................ A United States or Canadian vessel engaged 

in the salving operations of any property 

wrecked, or rendering aid and assistance 

to any vessels wrecked, disabled, or in distress, in waters specified in Article II of the 

1908 Treaty of Extradition, Wrecking and 

Salvage (35 Stat. 2035; Treaty Series 502).

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5319 

TABLE 5—NOAD DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND NPRM APPLICABILITY AND EXEMPTION

PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR PART 160—Continued 

Final rule paragraph in 

33 CFR part 160 Final rule text NPRM paragraph in 33 CFR part 160 Proposed rule text 

(5) ................................ NO CHANGE IN TEXT FROM NPRM ............ (4) ............................... The following vessels neither carrying certain 

dangerous cargo nor controlling another 

vessel carrying certain dangerous cargo: 

(i) ................................. NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... (i) ................................ A foreign vessel 300 gross tons or less not 

engaged in commercial service. 

(ii) ................................. NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... (ii) ............................... A vessel operating exclusively within a single 

Captain of the Port Zone. Captain of the 

Port zones are defined in 33 CFR part 3. 

(iii) ................................ A U.S. towing vessel and a U.S. barge operating solely between ports or places of the 

contiguous 48 states, Alaska, and the District of Columbia.

(iii) ............................... A U.S. towing vessel and a U.S. barge operating solely between ports or places of the 

continental United States. 

(iv) ................................ NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... (iv) .............................. A public vessel. 

(v) ................................ NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... (v) ............................... Except for a tank vessel, a U.S. vessel operating solely between ports or places of the 

United States on the Great Lakes. 

(vi) ................................ A U.S. vessel 300 gross tons or less, engaged in commercial service not coming 

from a foreign port or place.

(vi) .............................. A U.S. vessel 300 gross tons or less, engaged in commercial service not coming 

from a foreign port or place. 

(vii) ............................... Each ferry on a fixed route that is described 

in a schedule that is submitted by the ferry 

operator, along with information in paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(A)–(J) of this section, to 

the Captain of the Port for each port or 

place of destination listed in the schedule 

at least 24 hours in advance of the first 

date and time of arrival listed on the schedule. At least 24 hours before the first date 

and time of arrival listed on the ferry 

schedule, each ferry operator who submits 

a schedule under paragraph (a)(5)(vii) of 

this section must also provide the following 

information to the Captain of the Port for 

each port or place of destination listed in 

the schedule for the ferry, and if the schedule or the following submitted information 

changes, the ferry operator must submit an 

updated schedule at least 24 hours in advance of the first date and time of arrival 

listed on the new schedule and updates on 

the following items whenever the submitted 

information is no longer accurate: 

(A) Name of the vessel; 

(B) Country of registry of the vessel; 

(C) Call sign of the vessel; 

(D) International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

international number or, if the vessel does 

not have an assigned IMO international 

number, the official number of the vessel; 

(E) Name of the registered owner of the vessel; 

(F) Name of the operator of the vessel; 

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(G) Name of the vessel’s classification society or recognized organization, if applicable; 

(H) Each port or place of destination; 

(I) Estimated dates and times of arrivals at 

and departures from these ports or places; 

and 

(J) Name and telephone number of a 24-hour 

point of contact. 

(6) ................................ April 30, 2015 through December 31, 2015, 

vessels identified as being subject to 33 

CFR 165.830 or 165.921.

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

§ 160.215 ..................... NO CHANGE FROM NPRM ........................... § 160.215 .................... When a vessel is bound for a port or place of 

the United States under force majeure, it 

must comply with the requirements in this 

section, but not other sections of this subpart. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

We have placed AIS applicability 

provisions from both the final rule and 

the NPRM adjacent to each other in the 

following derivation and comparison 

table so that you may readily identify 

differences in vessels covered by this 

final rule compared with those the 

NPRM proposed to cover. 

TABLE 6—AIS DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND NPRM APPLICABILITY PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR 

164.46 

Final rule paragraph in 

33 CFR 164.46 Final rule text 

Corresponding NPRM 

paragraph in 33 CFR 

164.46 

Proposed rule text 

(b)(1) ............................ AIS Class A device. The following vessels 

must have on board a properly installed, 

operational Coast Guard type-approved 

AIS Class A device: 

(b) ............................... The following vessels must have onboard a 

properly installed, operational, Coast Guard 

type-approved Automatic Identification System (AIS): 

(i) .......................... NO CHANGE IN TEXT FROM NPRM. (1) ........................ A self-propelled vessel of 65 feet or more in 

length, engaged in commercial service; 

(ii) ......................... A towing vessel of 26 feet or more in length 

and more than 600 horsepower, engaged 

in commercial service. 

(2) ........................ A towing vessel of 26 feet or more in length 

and more than 600 horsepower, engaged 

in commercial towing; 

(iii) ......................... A vessel that is certificated to carry more 

than 150 passengers. 

(3) ........................ A self-propelled vessel carrying 50 or more 

passengers, engaged in commercial service; 

NO CORRESPONDING TEXT IN FINAL 

RULE. 

(4) ........................ A vessel carrying more than 12 passengers 

for hire and capable of speeds in excess of 

30 knots; 

(iv) ........................ A self-propelled vessel engaged in dredging 

operations in or near a commercial channel 

or shipping fairway in a manner likely to restrict or affect navigation of other vessels. 

(5) ........................ A dredge or floating plant engaged in or near 

a commercial channel or shipping fairway 

in operations likely to restrict or affect navigation of other vessels except for an unmanned or intermittently manned floating 

plant under the control of a dredge; and 

(v) ......................... A self-propelled vessel engaged in the movement of— 

(A) Certain dangerous cargo as defined in 

subpart C of part 160 of this chapter, or 

(B) Flammable or combustible liquid cargo in 

bulk that is listed in 46 CFR 30.25–1, Table 

30.25–1. 

(6) ........................ A self-propelled vessel carrying or engaged 

in the movement of certain dangerous cargoes as defined in § 160.202 of this subchapter. 

(b)(2) ............................ AIS Class B device. Use of a U.S. Coast 

Guard type-approved AIS Class B device 

in lieu of an AIS Class A device is permissible on the following vessels if they are 

not subject to pilotage by other than the 

vessel Master or crew: 

See Note to paragraph 

(b).

NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH, but 

see explanatory ‘‘Note to paragraph (b): 

Except for those vessels denoted in paragraph (c) of this section, use of Coast 

Guard type-approved AIS Class B is permissible, however, not well-suited, on vessels that are highly maneuverable, navigate 

at high speed, or routinely operate on or 

near very congested waterways or in closequarter situations with other AIS equipped 

vessels.’’ 

(i) .......................... Fishing industry vessels .................................. ..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(ii) ......................... Vessels identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section that are certificated to carry less 

than 150 passengers, and that— 

(A) Do not operate in a VTS or VMRS area 

defined in Table 161.12(c) of § 161.12 of 

this chapter, and 

(B) Do not operate at speeds in excess of 14 

knots; and engaged in dredging operations; 

and 

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(iii) ......................... Vessels identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of 

this section engaged in dredging operations. 

..................................... NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. 

(c) ................................ SOLAS provisions. The following self-propelled vessels must comply with International Convention for Safety of Life at 

Sea (SOLAS), as amended, Chapter V, 

regulation 19.2.1.6 (Positioning System), 

19.2.4 (AIS Class A), and 19.2.3.5 (Transmitting Heading Device) or 19.2.5.1 (Gyro 

Compass) as applicable (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 164.03): 

(c) ............................... SOLAS provisions. The following self-propelled vessels must comply with International Convention for Safety of Life at 

Sea (SOLAS), as amended, Chapter V, 

regulation 19.2.1.6, 19.2.4 (AIS Class A), 

and 19.2.3.5 or 19.2.5.1 as applicable (Incorporated by reference, see § 164.03): 

NO CORRESPONDING PARAGRAPH. (1) ........................ A vessel of 500 gross tonnage or more; 

(1) ......................... A vessel of 300 gross tonnage or more, on 

an international voyage. 

(2) ........................ A vessel of 300 gross tonnage or more, on 

an international voyage; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5321 

TABLE 6—AIS DERIVATION AND COMPARISON TABLE: FINAL RULE AND NPRM APPLICABILITY PARAGRAPHS IN 33 CFR 

164.46—Continued 

Final rule paragraph in 

33 CFR 164.46 Final rule text 

Corresponding NPRM 

paragraph in 33 CFR 

164.46 

Proposed rule text 

(2) ......................... NO CHANGE IN TEXT FROM NPRM. (3) ........................ A vessel of 150 gross tonnage or more, when

carrying more than 12 passengers on an 

international voyage. 

To eliminate confusion and 

redundancy within the industry, we 

have generally aligned our NOA 

regulations with CBP regulations under 

its APIS final rule (70 FR 17820, as 

amended at 72 FR 48320), which 

requires that vessels arriving from a 

foreign port or place to submit arrival 

manifests and those departing for a 

foreign port or place to submit departure 

manifests. The submission of an NOA 

itself for this population of vessels is not 

a new requirement. However, we have 

added five fields (vessel’s MMSI 

number, whether vessel 300-gross-tonor-less, whether voyage less than 24 

hours, last port of departure, and arrival 

and departure date for last port of 

departure) to the NOA, two of which are 

already required by two Coast Guard 

requirements that we are modifying. A 

NOD will not be required in this final 

rule. 

This rule will also require foreign 

commercial vessels 300 gross tons or 

less that transit two or more COTP 

zones to submit an NOA, which is not 

currently a CBP requirement. In 

addition, these vessel owners would be 

eligible to seek waivers under § 160.214 

at the discretion of the COTP, a current 

Coast Guard practice. 

This final rule will require the 

electronic submission of an NOA, and 

will modify related reporting content, 

timeframes, and procedures. This rule 

will also create an efficient and 

timesaving method of notification 

thereby reducing the hour burden on 

industry and Coast Guard resources. 

Our 60-minute notice time provides 

flexibility for owners of smaller U.S.- 

flag vessels and certain Canadian-flag 

vessels, because these businesses would 

continue to be able to operate efficiently 

as charter businesses due to the 

spontaneous nature of their business. 

This requirement also better aligns with 

the CBP’s current requirement, which 

will alleviate confusion within the 

industry and provide consistency for the 

public. 

We estimate the NOA portion of this 

rule will affect approximately 3,430 U.S. 

vessels and 14,947 foreign-flag vessels. 

The following estimates use a 7-percent 

discount rate over a 10-year period of 

analysis. We estimate the annual cost to 

U.S. vessel owners and operators to be 

about $28,706. We estimate the annual 

cost to foreign-flag vessel owners and 

operators to be about $104,502. We 

estimate the 10-year NOA cost to U.S. 

vessel owners and operators to be about 

$201,619. We estimate the 10-year NOA 

cost to foreign-flag vessel owners and 

operators to be about $733,978. We 

estimate the total annualized costs of 

the NOA requirements for both U.S. and 

foreign owners and operators to be 

about $133,208. We estimate the total 

present value 10-year costs of the NOA 

requirements for both U.S and foreignflag vessel owners and operators to be 

about $935,597. We estimate this rule 

will add less than 1 dollar per vessel 

trip on average for an owner or operator 

to submit an NOA. 

The AIS costs associated with this 

rule as presented are a result of the AIS 

carriage requirement, which includes 

the AIS device cost, installation, 

maintenance, training, replacement 

costs, unit initialization, and voyage 

specific updates. We estimate the AIS 

provisions will affect about 5,848 U.S. 

vessels and about 74 foreign-flag 

vessels. 

The following estimates use a 7- 

percent discount rate over a 10-year 

period of analysis. We estimate, for 

owners and operators of U.S. vessels 

that will be required to carry AIS 

onboard, the 10-year present value cost 

to be $45.0 million, with annualized 

costs of about $6.4 million at a 7-percent 

discount rate. We estimate for owners 

and operators of foreign-flag vessels the 

present value 10-year cost of this final 

rule to be $585,000, with annualized 

costs of about $83,000. We estimate for 

all owners and operators of U.S.- and 

foreign-flag vessels the total present 

value 10-year cost of the AIS provisions 

to be $45.5 million, with annualized 

costs of about $6.5 million. 

We estimate the total present value 

10-year cost of the final rule, including 

both NOA and AIS provisions, to be 

$46.5 million, with annualized costs of 

about $6.6 million. In our sample of 77 

small entities, we found these entities 

owned 244 total vessels, or about 3 

vessels per entity. Again, for the 

purpose of our analysis, we assumed all 

owners would install a Class A AIS 

device since we were not able to 

determine which small entities would 

choose to install the less costly Class B 

AIS device. Each small entity will 

purchase one AIS device for each vessel 

it owns. If a small entity owns one 

vessel, it will purchase one AIS device 

to meet the requirements of this final 

rule. We estimate this final rule will 

cost a small entity on average between 

about $2,000 and $14,300 to install, 

maintain, and carry AIS onboard 

depending upon the vessel class and 

whether the vessel will carry a Class A 

unit or Class B unit and to submit the 

three additional NOA fields. See 

Table 7. 

TABLE 7—COST PER SMALL ENTITY TO CARRY THREE AIS UNITS AND SUBMIT THREE ADDITIONAL NOA FIELDS

Type of AIS unit Types of vessels to install Average cost per owner/operator to purchase on average three AIS 

units and complete three additional NOA fields 

Class B plus NOA submissions ...... Commercial Fishing and vessels 

engaged in dredging operations.

$6,051 (initial year: $6,027 for three AIS units and $24 for three additional NOA fields). 

$774 (annually: $250 for AIS maintenance and $24 for three additional NOA fields). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7—COST PER SMALL ENTITY TO CARRY THREE AIS UNITS AND SUBMIT THREE ADDITIONAL NOA FIELDS— 

Continued 

Type of AIS unit Types of vessels to install Average cost per owner/operator to purchase on average three AIS 

units and complete three additional NOA fields 

Class A plus NOA submissions ...... All other vessels classes ............... $14,340 (initial year: $14,316 for three AIS units and $24 for three 

additional NOA fields). 

$1,473 (annually: $1,449 for AIS including updates and $24 for three 

additional NOA fields). 

We expect this final rule to improve 

the quantity and quality of information, 

and enhance communications and 

MDA. We believe this final rule, 

through a combination of NOA and AIS, 

will strengthen maritime and national 

security. This rule will include a large 

number of vessels not currently covered 

under the current NOA and AIS 

regulations. We expect this final rule 

will provide us with a better 

understanding of vessels coming to the 

United States and help us determine 

which vessels may pose a threat as a 

target, weapon, or transport of 

suspicious persons and/or materials. 

NOA provides us advance warning of 

those intending to enter our waters, and 

electronic submission allows us greater 

time to evaluate this information, and to 

take action if warranted based on 

information about a potential threat by 

the vessel or persons on board the 

vessel. Specifically, the NOA 

requirement is combined with other 

sources such as AIS to form a COP in 

which vessel-specific movements in our 

ports and waterways can be monitored 

in real time enabling us to filter data 

from non-compliant collection 

mechanisms such as radar, thereby 

enhancing our ability to rapidly detect, 

identify, and track suspicious vessels. 

This information is used as a decision 

making aid by the Coast Guard field 

commanders and is also referenced in 

support of interagency and Department 

of Defense homeland security efforts. 

Creating this COP helps the Coast Guard 

prioritize its limited resources and meet 

mission requirements while maintaining 

MDA. Moreover, along with passenger, 

crew and cargo information required by 

CBP, we can determine if a suspicious 

person is onboard a vessel and by 

adding AIS, we can determine the 

position of the suspicious vessel. We 

believe NOA and AIS combined will 

serve as a deterrent and will enhance 

Coast Guard interdiction capabilities, 

but will not completely eliminate the 

risk of maritime transportation 

incidents. 

As previously mentioned, we have 

added three NOA data fields that are 

new to industry. The addition of the 

MMSI number provides Coast Guard a 

unique identifier for the vessel which 

correlates NOA and AIS data and 

provides an accurate picture of location, 

and verification of identity of the vessel. 

The addition of the field ‘‘less than 300 

gross tons’’ allows the Coast Guard an 

opportunity to prioritize the screening 

of vessels, schedule inspections, and 

possibly establish security or safety 

zones. The addition of the field, ‘‘voyage 

less than 24 hours’’ will allow certain 

vessels that meet an exemption, such as 

U.S. flag vessels, to clarify that their 

voyage is less than 24 hours and 

eliminate the possibility of any delays 

or penalties that they may incur as a 

result of not submitting an NOA in a 

timely manner. The change to a 60- 

minute notice of arrival time for U.S. 

vessels under 300 gross tons provides 

flexibility and relief to small entities 

that typically own and operate vessels 

of this size. 

AIS provides further benefits by 

allowing for rapid filtering of data from 

mechanisms that do not rely on vessel 

cooperation (e.g., radar) and thus 

enhances security-related missions. AIS 

enables us to quickly locate, track, and 

intercept these vessels. This is a similar 

approach as taken for air transportation: 

Flight plan, passenger manifests and 

traffic control tracking. 

From a security perspective, vessels 

pose a risk in three ways: They can be 

used as a weapon for terrorists (e.g., 

ramming another vessel or 

infrastructure component), they can be 

used to transport personnel/materials 

for an attack, or they can be used as the 

target of an attack. This rule helps focus 

Coast Guard and other resources to 

mitigate security risk across all three 

scenarios. Specifically, to determine if a 

vessel can be used as a weapon, a target, 

or as a transport vehicle, the Coast 

Guard has several tools at its disposal 

that assign risk based on valuable 

information contained in an NOA, such 

as crew and passenger information that 

CBP and the FBI use to identify persons 

or vessels that may pose a security risk 

to the United States. After receiving the 

NOA information, the data are placed 

into a database or matrix (dependent on 

the tool being used). Points are assigned 

to each vessel and a vessel is then given 

a priority ranking based on its type and 

stated cargo. Above a certain threshold, 

the Coast Guard determines whether a 

vessel requires an escort to reduce the 

possibility of the vessel being used as a 

weapon, a target, or as a transport of 

suspicious persons or materials, such as 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or 

weapons of mass effect (WME). If 

necessary, the vessel may be boarded or 

inspected to ensure it meets 

international safety and security 

standards. 

We expect this rule to provide 

quantifiable benefits in the form of 

barrels of oil not spilled in addition to 

benefits from avoided injuries and 

fatalities. For the NPRM, we based 

quantifiable benefits on a review of 64 

marine accident cases from our MISLE 

database for the period 1996–2003 in 

order to obtain casualty reports 

involving commercial vessels that may 

have benefitted from an onboard AIS 

unit. For the final rule, we also 

examined casualty cases for the period 

2004–2010 and found an additional 21 

cases where AIS may have been 

beneficial in preventing an accident. For 

the period 1996–2009, we estimate the 

final rule will prevent 85 to 106 barrels 

of oil from being spilled during a 10- 

year period of analysis. We also 

analyzed more than 800 casualty 

incidents for 2010 and found only three 

cases where AIS may have been 

beneficial; however, the three cases did 

not involve any injuries, fatalities, 

death, or pollution and therefore did not 

provide additional benefits. 

Using a VSL of $9.1 million, we also 

estimated additional benefits (from 

avoided injuries and fatalities) of $25.1 

million at a 7-percent discount rate, 

during the 10-year period of analysis or 

an annualized amount of about $3.6 

million. The VSL estimate is based on 

the 2013 memorandum from DOT titled 

‘‘Guidance on Treatment of the 

Economic Value of a Statistical Life in 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Analyses.’’ This memorandum is 

available in the docket as detailed under 

ADDRESSES. The VSL is not an estimate 

of the value of a person’s life, but is 

instead a technical valuation of the 

amount one would be willing to pay to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5323 

reduce the probability of fatality. For 

example, a $9.1 million VSL means the 

public is willing to pay $9.10 to reduce 

the risk of a fatality by 1 in a million. 

Our evaluation of the 85 accident 

cases, including 2010, also resulted in 

about $5.1 million in property damage 

or about $350,000 per year. 

AIS helps reduce the risk of attack in 

two ways: (1) Reducing the likelihood of 

a successful attack, and (2) reducing the 

consequences should a successful attack 

occur. AIS reduces the likelihood of a 

successful attack which arises from the 

enhanced ability to defeat an attack. We 

identify the steps require to defeat an 

attack and how AIS helps to detect an 

attack in Table 20 of the regulatory 

analysis available on the docket for 

review. In Table 22 of the regulatory 

analysis, we also present illustrative 

scenarios where NOA in conjunction 

with AIS may be helpful in attacks 

ranging from any attack versus any size 

passenger vessel to an attack versus a 

cruise ship from a large VBIED. AIS also 

assists in identifying vessels in position 

to assist with emergency response/

search and rescue by showing location 

of vessels in response operations and 

their proximity to vessels in need of 

response resources. This works for all 

attack types by reducing the time to get 

assisting vessels on the scene of the 

incident. 

We performed a breakeven analysis 

based on common passenger vessel 

capacity amounts of 12 (threshold in 

Regulation 2 of the SOLAS International 

Convention), 150 (threshold used in the 

2003 AIS Final Rule), and 2,000 (for 

large cruise ships that may be potential 

targets of smaller vessels that carry a 

vessel borne improvised explosive 

device (VBIED)). Table 8 that follows 

presents the annual risk reduction 

required for passenger vessels with 

certain passenger capacities for the final 

rule to breakeven. We estimated the 

annualized cost for the 288 passenger 

vessels, affected by this rule, at a 7- 

percent discount rate to be $0.33 

million. Using the scenario of 150 lives 

saved for passenger vessels as our 

example, we can determine the number 

of years the final rule will have to 

prevent one incident involving 150 

casualties in order for benefits to 

outweigh costs. From Table 8, the 

benefit from casualties avoided is $1.4 

billion using $9.1 million as the value 

of a statistical life. Using the annualized 

cost of $0.33 million for this population 

of passenger vessels affected by the final 

rule (288), we can determine the 

number of years the final rule would 

have to prevent one casualty in order for 

benefits to outweigh costs. Multiplying 

$0.33 million by the variable ‘‘time’’ and 

equating it to the benefit value of $1.4 

billion, we solve for time to obtain 4,136 

years, meaning the final rule would 

have to prevent one casualty incident 

involving 150 passengers in this time 

period for the final rule to be beneficial. 

TABLE 8—ANNUAL RISK REDUCTION REQUIRED FOR COSTS TO EQUAL BENEFITS FOR PASSENGER VESSELS WITH

CERTAIN PASSENGER CAPACITIES

[Annual costs at 7-percent discount rate] 

Potential casualties avoided 

Benefit from 

casualties 

avoided 

($millions) 

Annualized 

cost for 

passenger 

vessels 

($millions) 

Risk reduction 

required 

(%) 

Risk reduction 

required 

(years 

between 

averted 

attacks) 

12 ..................................................................................................................... $109.2 $0.33 0.30 331 

150 ................................................................................................................... 1,365 0.33 0.02 4,136 

2,000 ................................................................................................................ 18,200 0.33 0.0018 55,152 

These estimates do not reflect the full 

socioeconomic benefits of oil spill 

mitigation and risk reduction associated 

with vessels, which include avoided 

damages to the ecosystem and regional 

and national economic impacts. The 

scenarios above show the loss of human 

capital only for passenger vessels with 

certain passenger capacities specified 

above, and with no regard for physical 

assets, it likely underestimates the 

monetary effects of a terrorist incident. 

The human capital scenario shown as 

benefits from casualties avoided provide 

a useful account of the risk reduction in 

years required for the final rule to 

breakeven. 

In the regulatory analysis, for the 

entire casualty period 1996–2010, about 

14 barrels of oil were spilled annually. 

We estimate the total benefit or barrels 

of oil not spilled for all 85 casualty 

cases between 1996 and 2010 to be 

between 85 and 106 barrels over the 10- 

year period of analysis at 7- and 3- 

percent discount rates, respectively. We 

expect annualized unmonetized benefits 

to be about 12 barrels of oil not spilled. 

The Regulatory Analysis for the final 

rule contains additional discussion of 

benefits, including qualitative benefits. 

The NOA provisions provide the 

ability to perform advanced screening of 

cargo, passengers and crew, thus 

enabling interdiction of illicit activities 

including smuggling of weapons of mass 

destruction and/or terrorists. These 

provisions also enable the planning and 

prioritization of other protective 

measures, including protecting 

surrounding critical infrastructures from 

attacks using the vessel and/or 

protecting the vessel itself from attack. 

Given the range of attacks from a small 

passenger vessel to a cruise ship and the 

type of attack from a small device to a 

large VBIED as presented in the 

regulatory analysis, the casualty range 

can vary greatly, where the breakeven 

point can be minor to extremely minor. 

NOA may help prevent attacks from a 

man portable device with just one 

fatality, which would require only one 

attack prevented every 88 years up to an 

attack with major consequences from a 

WMD or WME. 

The AIS provisions support real-time 

situational awareness of vessel position 

and movements, and enable the 

detection of unusual/threatening 

operations and subsequent interdiction. 

AIS requirements also provide for a 

better understanding of resources in the 

area of an incident and thus enable 

more effective response planning. 

Combined with NOA provisions, AIS 

requirements further provide the ability 

to compare actual operations with stated 

plans, thus enabling the identification of 

potentially threatening activities. 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Analysis’’ in 

Docket No. USCG–2005–21869 at 

http://www.regulations.gov for details of 

these calculations. The following link 

will take you directly to the docket: 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

whether this final rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

When an agency promulgates a final 

rule under section 4 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553, after being required by that section 

or any other law to publish a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking, or 

promulgates a final interpretative rule 

involving the internal revenue laws of 

the United States, under 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 

the agency must prepare a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

or have the head of the agency certify 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final 

rule will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

prescribes the content of the FRFA in 5 

U.S.C. 604(a), a summary of which we 

discuss below. 

(1) The RFA requires a succinct 

statement of the need for, and objectives 

of, the final rule. 

Coast Guard response: The need and 

objective of this final rule is to (1) fully 

implement the Marine Transportation 

Security Act of 2002 AIS directive 

found at 46 U.S.C. 70114, (2) implement 

SOLAS AIS requirements including 

provisions in V/19.2.4.3 that went into 

force internationally July 1, 2008, and 

(3) expand NOA requirements and 

streamline the processing of these data 

to further enhance Homeland Security 

under Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

authority (33 U.S.C. 1225 & 1226) by 

increasing our awareness of vessels and 

people entering or departing U.S. ports 

or places. Prompt receipt of NOA and 

AIS data will assist the Coast Guard in 

preventing damage to structures on, in, 

or adjacent to the navigable waters of 

the United States and in protecting 

those navigable waters in the marine 

environment. AIS data will also assist 

vessels in avoiding collisions. This rule 

will affect a larger portion of relatively 

smaller vessels, which are not currently 

included under existing regulations 

(including fishing vessels). 

(2) The RFA requires a summary of 

the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

IRFA, a summary of the assessment of 

the agency of such issues, and a 

statement of any changes made in the 

proposed rule as a result of such 

comments. 

Coast Guard response: We summarize 

the public comments we received on the 

NPRM in section VI.C of the preamble. 

(3) The RFA requires a description of 

and an estimate of the number of small 

entities to which the final rule will 

apply or an explanation of why no such 

estimate is available. 

Coast Guard response: As previously 

discussed, this rule will affect owners 

and operators of vessels that will be 

required to submit an NOA in addition 

to vessel owners and operators that will 

be required to carry and operate an AIS 

unit onboard. This Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis is based on our 

analysis of the requirements of the AIS 

portion of this rule as discussed in the 

separate Regulatory Analysis available 

in the docket for review. The addition 

of nine data fields to the NOA 

information requirements (only three of 

which are new to industry) will impose 

minor costs on industry because of the 

small burden associated with 

performing the task. The majority of the 

cost impact of this rule on small entities 

stems primarily from the AIS portion of 

this rule. We estimate that 5,821 U.S.- 

flag vessels will be affected by the AIS 

portion of this rule and we expect that 

a majority of these vessels may be 

owned by small entities based on our 

analysis. 

Based on current Coast Guard data, 

we estimate this rule will affect about 

3,333 U.S. companies (entities) that own 

approximately 9,278 vessels. We 

randomly selected a sample size of 345 

vessel owners and operators to reach the 

95 percent confidence level. We found 

revenue and employee information on 

104 of the entities in the sample using 

publicly available information. Of these, 

we found 77 to be small entities 

according to Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards. 

We did not find government or nonprofit entities in our sample. We 

consider the 241 with no revenue or 

employee information to be small 

entities, as the lack of available 

information likely indicates smaller 

entity size. 

We estimated the potential initial and 

annual revenue impact for each owner 

and operator that will be required to 

have AIS on board. We multiplied the 

initial and annual costs of AIS 

installation by the number of vessels 

that each entity owns and then divided 

by the average annual revenues for each 

small entity to obtain the share of costs 

to total annual revenues. 

We classified small entities by the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code for those entities 

that had revenue and size data. The 77 

small entities with data are represented 

by 34 different NAICS codes or 

categories. We determined if a business 

was small by using the SBA size 

standards for each NAICS code. We 

found that 7 NAICS categories represent 

about 55 percent or 42 of the 77 small 

entities that we analyzed. The 

remaining 45 percent (or 35 small 

entities) of small entities are represented 

by 27 different NAICS categories with 

about 1 percent of the population of 

small entities in a majority of the 

categories. 

Based on the 7 NAICS categories that 

represent 55 percent of the small 

entities with data, about 43 percent or 

33 of the 77 small entities are classified 

by 5 NAICS categories: ‘‘Finfish 

Fishing,’’ ‘‘Inland Water Freight 

Transportation,’’ ‘‘Shellfish Fishing,’’ 

‘‘Navigational Services to Shipping,’’ 

and ‘‘Fish and Seafood Merchant 

Wholesalers’’. Based on available data, 

we did not find evidence that small notfor-profit organizations or small 

government jurisdictions will be 

impacted by this rule. 

(4) The RFA requires a description of 

the projected reporting, recordkeeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the final rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record. 

Coast Guard response: The final rule 

will require modifications to two 

existing OMB-approved collections 

‘‘Advance Notice of Arrival and 

Departure’’ (OMB Control Number 

1625–0100) and ‘‘Enhanced Maritime 

Domain Awareness via Electronic 

Transmission of Vessel Transit Data’’ 

(OMB Control Number 1625–0112). Five 

data elements will be added to the 

collection of information (1625–0100) 

and one will be deleted; of the five 

added data elements, only three (MMSI, 

Whether vessel is 300 GT or less, and 

whether the vessel’s voyage time is less 

than 24 hours) are new to industry. We 

believe the burden for this additional 

element is so minimal that a change to 

the total burden estimate for this 

collection is unnecessary. 

The projected reporting and 

recordkeeping, other compliance 

requirements of the final rule, and types 

of activities and skills necessary for the 

preparation of NOAs and AIS 

information are described in section 

VIII. D., ‘‘Collection of Information.’’ 

(5) The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5325 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments. 

Coast Guard response: The Coast 

Guard did not receive comments on the 

NPRM from the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

(6) The RFA requires a description of 

the steps the agency has taken to 

minimize the significant economic 

impact on small entities consistent with 

the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes, including a statement of the 

factual, policy, and legal reasons for 

selecting the alternative adopted in the 

final rule and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the final rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

Coast Guard response: The 

requirements for notice of arrival in this 

final rule for vessels, regardless of size, 

coming from a foreign port or place will 

be applied to vessels that are already 

required to comply with the CBP’s APIS 

requirements. The evaluation of 

alternatives for this part of the final rule 

is unnecessary since the CBP’s final rule 

precedes the Coast Guard’s final rule for 

the submission of notices of arrival. 

Two aspects where our rule differs from 

the CBP’s final rule are the Coast Guard 

NOA requirement (1) for foreign-flag 

commercial vessels less than 300 gross 

tons transiting two different COTP 

zones and (2) vessels carrying CDC. 

Vessels in the second category above 

will have to submit an NOA for nearly 

all transits. In addition, each COTP will 

have the discretion to grant waivers for 

these vessels under 33 CFR 160.214. 

The Coast Guard has established an 

exception for certain ferries that transit 

more than one COTP zone and some 

ferries will continue to qualify for the 

operating-exclusively-within-a-singleCOTP-zone exception. 

In drafting this rule, the Coast Guard 

originally contemplated reducing the 

threshold for NOADs to 100 gross tons, 

but we determined that this would have 

left the Coast Guard without the 

necessary visibility of these smaller 

vessels to ensure that we can conduct 

necessary inspections. 

These vessels also pose a unique 

threat due to their size and can be 

utilized as weapons, targets, or 

transports of suspicious persons and/or 

materials. By capturing vessels down to 

zero gross tons for notice of arrival, we 

have ensured that all commercial 

vessels would be required to submit 

NOAs if coming from a foreign port or 

place, and by more closely aligning this 

requirement with CBP’s requirement, 

we reduce some confusion within the 

industry. It also allows the Coast Guard 

to identify and assess a vessel’s threat 

level based on size, cargo, crew, and 

route. 

The Coast Guard also considered 

carriage of AIS units on passenger 

vessels that carry more than 12 

passengers, a passenger vessel threshold 

mandated by SOLAS regardless of size 

or type of voyage. These vessels carry 

up to 150 passengers (and thus, the 

threshold of more than 150 passengers 

does not apply to them) who may be 

injured or killed in a collision or 

terrorist attack. However, the domestic 

population of passenger vessels that 

carry more than 12 passengers and up 

to 150 passengers and less than 65 feet 

in length is estimated to be 4,450 

vessels, which are predominantly 

owned by small entities. We estimate 

the cost for the carriage (including 

installation and operation and 

maintenance costs) of AIS units 

(assuming Class A units) on this 

population of vessels to be between 

$36.0 and $42.4 million at 7- and 3- 

percent discount rates, respectively. 

This would have been a relatively large 

cost burden for small entities that 

operate these vessels with very few 

marginal benefits; therefore, the Coast 

Guard rejected this passenger vessel 

threshold for AIS carriage. 

The AIS portion of this final rule is 

based on a statutory directive for the 

carriage of AIS devices onboard 

commercial vessels of a certain size or 

type; some of these vessels are expressly 

identified in 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) 

and (C), and others are identified based 

on a decision by the Secretary as called 

for in 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(B) and (D). 

See Table 9 that follows for the source 

of authority for each § 164.46 

applicability paragraph, including those 

based on a SOLAS requirement. Based 

on public comments that the rulemaking 

is too costly for smaller vessel owners 

and operators and our assessment of 

alternatives to requirements we 

proposed, the Coast Guard has set its 

passenger threshold to vessels 

certificated to carry more than 150 

passengers—up from our proposed 

threshold of 50 or more passengers— 

and will also allow certain vessel 

owners and operators to install the less 

costly Class B AIS unit, which should 

alleviate some of the cost burden on 

smaller vessel owners and operators. 

See the Regulatory Analysis in the 

docket for further details. 

TABLE 9—NATURE OF AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION AND USE OF AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) 

33 CFR 

164.46 Text of final rule Expressly required by statute Expressly required by international convention 

Based on discretion exercised 

by Coast Guard 

(b)(1) .............. AIS Class A device. The following vessels must have on board a properly installed, operational Coast Guard type-approved AIS 

Class A device: 

(b)(1)(i) ........... A self-propelled vessel of 65 

feet or more in length, engaged in commercial service.

46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(A) (‘‘A 

self-propelled commercial 

vessel of at least 65 feet 

overall in length.’’).

(b)(1)(ii) .......... A towing vessel of 26 feet or 

more in length and more 

than 600 horsepower, engaged in commercial towing.

46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(C) (‘‘A 

towing vessel of more than 

26 feet overall in length and 

600 horsepower.’’).

(b)(1)(iii) ......... A vessel that is certificated to 

carry more than 150 passengers.

46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(B) (‘‘A 

vessel carrying more than a 

number of passengers for 

hire determined by the Secretary.’’.

................................................ 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(D) 

(‘‘Any other vessel for 

which the Secretary decides that an automatic 

identification system is necessary for the safe navigation of the vessel.’’). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 9—NATURE OF AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION AND USE OF AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS)— 

Continued 

33 CFR 

164.46 Text of final rule Expressly required by statute Expressly required by international convention 

Based on discretion exercised 

by Coast Guard 

(b)(1)(iv) ......... A self-propelled vessel engaged in dredging operations in or near a commercial channel or shipping 

fairway in a manner likely 

to restrict or affect navigation of other vessels.

................................................ ................................................ 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(D). 

(b)(1)(v) .......... A self-propelled vessel engaged in the movement 

of— 

(A) Certain dangerous cargo 

as defined in subpart C of 

part 160 of this chapter, or 

(B) Flammable or combustible 

liquid cargo in bulk that is 

listed in 46 CFR 30.25–1, 

Table 30.25–1.

................................................ ................................................ 46 U.S.C. 70114(a)(1)(D). 

(b)(2)(i) ........... (2) AIS Class B device. Use 

of a U.S. Coast Guard 

type-approved AIS Class B 

device in lieu of an AIS 

Class A device is permissible on the following vessels if they are not subject 

to pilotage by other than 

the vessel Master or crew: 

(i) Fishing industry vessels; 

................................................ ................................................ 46 U.S.C. 70114(b) (‘‘The 

Secretary shall prescribe 

regulations implementing 

subsection (a), including requirements for the operation and maintenance of 

the automatic identification 

systems required under 

subsection (a).’’). 

(b)(2)(ii) .......... (ii) Vessels identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section that are certificated to 

carry less than 150 passengers, and that— 

(A) Do not operate in a VTS 

or VMRS area defined in 

Table 161.12(c) of § 161.12 

of this chapter, and 

(B) Do not operate at speeds 

in excess of 14 knots; and 

................................................ ................................................ 46 U.S.C. 70114(b). 

(b)(2)(iii) ......... (iii) Vessels identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section engaged in dredging 

operations.

................................................ ................................................ 46 U.S.C. 70114(b). 

(c) ................... (c) SOLAS provisions. The 

following self-propelled vessels must comply with International Convention for 

Safety of Life at Sea 

(SOLAS), as amended, 

Chapter V, regulation 

19.2.1.6 (Positioning System), 19.2.4 (AIS Class A), 

and 19.2.3.5 (Transmitting 

Heading Device) or 

19.2.5.1 (Gyro Compass) 

as applicable (Incorporated 

by reference, see § 164.03): 

................................................ SOLAS Art. I, SOLAS, 32 

U.S.T. 47, and the Protocol 

of 1978 relating to SOLAS, 

32 U.S.T. 5577.

(c)(1) .............. (1) A vessel of 300 gross tonnage or more, on an international voyage................................................. Same as above, and SOLAS 

Chapter V, regulation 

19.2.4, that requires all 

ships of 300 gross tonnage 

and upwards engaged on 

international voyages to be 

fitted with AIS.


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5327 

TABLE 9—NATURE OF AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION AND USE OF AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS)— 

Continued 

33 CFR 

164.46 Text of final rule Expressly required by statute Expressly required by international convention 

Based on discretion exercised 

by Coast Guard 

(c)(2) .............. (2) A vessel of 150 gross tonnage or more, when carrying more than 12 passengers on an international 

voyage.

................................................ Same as above with addition 

of SOLAS V, regulation 1.4, 

which gives the United 

States discretion in implementing these AIS requirements for ships less than 

150 gross tonnage.

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the final rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. If you 

think that this rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning these provisions 

or options for compliance, please 

consult with the Coast Guard personnel 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this rule. We will not 

retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

D. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), 

‘‘collection of information’’ comprises 

reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, 

posting, labeling, and other, similar 

actions. The title and description of the 

information collections, a description of 

those who must collect the information, 

and an estimate of the total annual 

burden follow. The estimate covers the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing sources of data, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection. 

This rule relates to two existing OMBapproved collections of information, 

1625–0100 and 1625–0112. Details are 

provided below. 

The summary of revised 1625–0100 

collection follows: 

Title: Advance Notice of Vessel 

Arrival. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0100. 

Summary Of The Collection Of 

Information: We require arrival notices 

from certain vessels bound for a port or 

place in the United States. This rule 

revises the applicability of vessels 

required to submit an NOA, adds three 

new data elements that will be required 

by 33 CFR part 160, and removes 1 data 

element with no impact on burden. 

Need For Information: To strengthen 

port safety and security and to ensure 

the uninterrupted flow of commerce. To 

this end, we must modify our NOA 

regulations. 

Proposed Use Of Information: This 

information is required to control vessel 

traffic, develop contingency plans, and 

enforce regulations. 

Description Of The Respondents: 

Respondents are the owner, agent, 

Master, operator, or person in charge of 

a vessel that arrives at or departs from 

a port or place in the United States. 

Number Of Respondents: The existing 

OMB-approved number of respondents 

is 31,594. This rule will decrease that 

number by 13,217. The total number of 

respondents will be 18,377. We attribute 

this decrease in the number of 

respondents to our improved analysis of 

the number of vessels impacted by this 

rulemaking. 

Frequency Of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved number of responses is 

170,866, not including 150 waivers. 

This rule will decrease that number by 

63,261. The total number of responses 

will be 107,605 (not including waivers). 

Burden Of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved burden of response is 

approximately 30 minutes per response 

plus an additional 2 minutes for the 

three new data fields that are new to 

industry: Maritime Mobile Service 

Identity (MMSI), whether a vessel is 300 

GT or less, and whether the vessel’s 

voyage time is less than 24 hours. 

Estimate Of Total Annual Burden: 

The existing OMB-approved total 

annual burden is 163,994 hours (ICR 

Ref. No. 201012–1625–002), not 

including 150 waivers. This rule will 

increase that number by 4,168 hours. 

The estimated total annual burden will 

be 168,312 hours (not including 

waivers). 

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we 

submitted a copy of the final rule to 

OMB for its review of the collection of 

information. OMB has not yet 

completed its review of this collection. 

Therefore, we are not making 

§§ 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205 and 

160.208 effective until our information 

collection request is approved by OMB. 

We will publish a document in the 

Federal Register informing the public of 

OMB’s decision to approve, modify, or 

disapprove the collection. 

The summary of revised 1625–0112 

collection follows: 

Title: Enhanced Maritime Domain 

Awareness via Electronic Transmission 

of Vessel Transit Data. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0112. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: We plan to collect, store, 

share, and analyze data transmitted by 

AIS to enhance MDA. Awareness and 

threat knowledge are critical for 

securing and maintaining safety in the 

maritime domain and the key to 

preventing adverse events. Domain 

awareness enables the early 

identification of potential threats and 

enhances appropriate responses, 

including interdiction at an optimal 

distance with capable prevention forces 

and increases the timeliness and 

effectiveness of response to an incident. 

Need for Information: To ensure 

maritime safety and security and to 

ensure the effective movement of 

commerce. 

Proposed Use of Information: This 

information collection, storage, and 

analysis would greatly expand the 

breadth and depth of our MDA. This 

enhanced MDA would enable quicker, 

more efficient responses to marine 

casualties and improve our ability to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

prevent and respond to potential 

terrorist threats. It would also contribute 

an essential aspect to our COP, which is 

our system for sharing operational data 

among those who need it to perform 

their missions. 

Description of the Respondents: 

Respondents are the operators or 

persons in charge of vessels that carry 

AIS. The MTSA requires the following 

vessels to carry AIS: 

• A self-propelled commercial vessel 

of at least 65-feet in overall length. 

• A towing vessel of more than 26 

feet overall in length and 600 

horsepower. 

• Vessels carrying more than a 

number of passengers for hire 

determined by the Secretary. 

• Any other vessel for which the 

Secretary decides that an automatic 

identification system is necessary for 

the safe navigation of the vessel. In 

addition to vessels subject to the MTSA, 

we estimate an additional 10 percent of 

voluntary compliance with this rule and 

information collection. 

Number of Respondents: The existing 

OMB-approved number of respondents 

is 613—LRIT system users. The AIS 

portion of this rule will increase that 

number by 8,922 (about 5,848 U.S.-flag 

vessels and 74 foreign-flag vessels 

estimated for this rule including about 

3,000 existing AIS users). The total 

number of respondents is estimated to 

be 9,535 including 613 respondents 

from LRIT. 

Frequency of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved number of responses is 

613. This final rule will increase that 

number by 534,557 (533,574 for U.S.- 

flag vessels and 370 for foreign-flag 

vessels) for a total of 534,944 responses 

including 613 responses from LRIT 

annually. 

Burden of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved burden of response is 

approximately 20 minutes per response. 

We retain this estimate to initialize the 

unit plus about five minutes per voyage 

to enter the information for Class A 

users. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

existing OMB-approved total annual 

burden is 204 hours (ICR Ref. No. 

201009–1625–012). This rule will 

increase that number by 46,986 hours 

annually for a total of 47,190 hours. The 

hour burden is a function of the 20 

minutes dedicated to the initial 

encoding of the AIS device with the 

vessel’s static data (MMSI, IMO number, 

name, call sign, type, and dimension) 

and approximately 5 minute per voyage 

to update the vessel’s dynamic data 

(status, destination, estimated time of 

arrival, and, static draft), which is based 

on the number of vessels subject to 

Class A AIS carriage performing an 

average 164 voyages per year for U.S.- 

flag vessels. 

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we 

submitted a copy of the final rule to 

OMB for its review of the collection of 

information. OMB has not yet 

completed its review of this collection. 

Therefore, we are not making 

§ 164.46(b) and (c) effective until its 

information collection request is 

approved by OMB. We will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

informing the public of OMB’s decision 

to approve, modify, or disapprove the 

collection. 

You are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this final rule under that Order and have 

determined that it is consistent with the 

fundamental federalism principles and 

preemption requirements described in 

Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is 

explained below. 

To the extent States have a current 

requirement in effect for notices of 

vessel arrivals to a State agency—for 

example, notices to pilot authorities for 

pilot services—we do not intend to 

preempt those requirements with this 

final rule. However, we reserve our 

position with respect to preemption of 

any prospective new State rule or legal 

requirement for a notice of arrival or 

submission of information requirements 

that are similar to those set forth in this 

final rule. The U.S. Supreme Court in 

United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 

S.Ct. 1135 (2000), held that pursuant to 

title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety 

Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221–1232), the 

authority for the NOA portion of this 

final rule, we can preempt conflicting or 

similar State requirements on vessel 

operation. Accordingly, based on the 

Supreme Court’s holding in the Locke 

case, we believe that any prospective 

State requirement for an NOA or 

information gathering requirement 

directed at vessel owners or operators 

that is similar to that contained in this 

final rule is inconsistent with the 

Federalism principles enunciated in 

that case and is preempted. 

Regarding the AIS portion of this final 

rule, it is well settled that States may 

not regulate in categories reserved for 

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also 

well settled, now, that all of the 

categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 

3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, 

construction, alteration, repair, 

maintenance, operation, equipping, 

personnel qualification, and manning of 

vessels), in which Congress intended 

the Coast Guard to be the sole source of 

a vessel’s obligations, are within the 

field foreclosed from regulation by the 

States. Our AIS carriage requirements 

fall into the category of equipping of 

vessels which, based on the principles 

in Locke, are within a field foreclosed 

from regulation by States. In addition, 

under the authority of Title I of the 

PWSA (specifically 33 U.S.C. 1223) and 

the MTSA, this final rule will preempt 

any State action on the subject of AIS 

carriage requirements. See Locke. 

In light of the analyses above, this 

final rule is consistent with the 

principles of federalism and preemption 

requirements in Executive Order 13132. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any 1 year. Though this final 

rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we discuss the effects of 

this final rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This final rule will not cause a taking 

of private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This final rule is not an 

economically significant rule and does 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5329 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order. Though 

it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866, this final 

rule is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

not designated it as a significant energy 

action. Therefore, this final rule does 

not require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in their regulatory 

activities unless the agency provides 

Congress, through the OMB, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This final rule uses the following 

voluntary consensus standards: 

• IMO Resolution A.917(22), 

Guidelines for the Onboard Operational 

Use of Shipborne Automatic 

Identification System (AIS), adopted 

November 29, 2001 

• IMO SN/Circ 227, Guidelines for 

the Installation of a Shipborne 

Automatic Identification System (AIS), 

dated January 6, 2003 

• IMO SN/Circ 244, Guidance on the 

Use of the UN/LOCODE in the 

Destination Field in AIS Messages, 

dated December 15, 2004 

• IMO SN/Circ 245, Amendments to 

the Guidelines for the Installation of a 

Shipborne Automatic Identification 

System (AIS) (SN/Circ.227), dated 

December 15, 2004 

• IMO SN.1/Circ 289, Guidelines on 

the Use of AIS Application-specific 

Messages, dated June 2, 2010 

• National Marine Electronics 

Association (NMEA) 0400, Installation 

Standard for Marine Electronic 

Equipment used on Moderate-Sized 

Vessels, Version 3.10, dated February 

2012 

The section that references these 

standards and the locations where these 

standards are available are listed in 

§ 164.03. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this final rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide us in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This rule is 

categorically excluded under section 

2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(a), (d), 

(e), and (i) of the Instruction and under 

section 6.a. of the ‘‘Appendix to 

National Environmental Policy Act: 

Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical 

Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency 

Policy’’ (67 FR 48243, 48245, July 23, 

2002). This rule involves regulations 

concerning reporting procedures, 

equipping of vessels, equipment 

carriage requirements, aid of navigation, 

and vessel operation safety standards. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 62 

Navigation (water). 

33 CFR Part 66 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Navigation (water), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

33 CFR Part 101 

Harbors, Maritime security, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures, Vessels, Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

33 CFR Part 118 

Bridges. 

33 CFR Part 151 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

33 CFR Part 160 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Harbors, Hazardous 

materials transportation, Marine safety 

Navigation (water), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, 

Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 161 

Harbors, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vessels, Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 164 

Incorporation by reference, Marine 

safety, Navigation (water), Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

46 CFR Part 4 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug testing, Investigations, 

Marine safety, Nuclear vessels, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

46 CFR Part 148 

Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials 

transportation, Marine safety. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR parts 62, 66, 101, 110, 117, 118, 

151, 160, 161, 164, and 165, and 46 CFR 

parts 4 and 148, as follows: 

Title 33—Navigation and Navigable 

Waters 

PART 62—UNITED STATES AIDS TO 

NAVIGATION SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 33 U.S.C. 1222, 

1233; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 62.52 to read as follows: 

§ 62.52 Automatic Identification System 

Aids to Navigation (AIS AtoN). 

(a) Aids to Navigation (AtoN) may be 

enhanced by the use of an automatic 

identification system (AIS). AIS is a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

maritime navigation safety 

communications protocol standardized 

by the International Telecommunication 

Union and adopted by the International 

Maritime Organization for the broadcast 

or exchange of navigation information 

between vessels, aircraft, and shore 

stations. AIS AtoN can autonomously 

and at fixed intervals broadcast the 

name, position, dimensions, type, 

characteristics and status from or 

concerning an aid to navigation. 

(b) AIS AtoN can be either real 

(physically fitted to the AtoN), synthetic 

(physically fitted somewhere other than 

to the AtoN) or virtual (physically 

nonexistent, but capable of being 

portrayed on AIS-capable displays). 

(c) AIS AtoN can also be used to 

broadcast both laterally (e.g., Port Hand 

Mark) and non-laterally significant 

marine safety information (e.g., 

environmental data, tidal information, 

and navigation warnings). 

PART 66—PRIVATE AIDS TO 

NAVIGATION 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 66 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 83, 84, 85; 43 U.S.C. 

1333; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 66.01–1 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 66.01–1, remove paragraph (d). 

■ 5. Revise § 66.01–5(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 66.01–5 Application procedure. 

* * * * * 

(i) For AIS AtoN and racons: 

Manufacturer and model number of AIS 

AtoN and racon, position and height 

above water of desired installation, and 

requested MORSE coding or AIS AtoN 

message characteristics. Equipment 

must have FCC authorization. 

PART 101—MARITIME SECURITY: 

GENERAL 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive 

Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 

CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 101.105 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 101.105, in the definition of 

Certain Dangerous Cargo, remove the 

section reference ‘‘160.204’’ and add, in 

its place, the section reference 

‘‘160.202’’. 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 110.158 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 110.158(b), remove the words 

‘‘Sec. 160.203 of this title’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘§ 160.202 of this 

chapter’’. 

§ 110.168 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 110.168(b), in the definition of 

Dangerous cargo, remove the section 

reference ‘‘§ 160.204 of this title’’ and 

add, in its place, the section reference 

‘‘§ 160.202 of this chapter’’. 

§ 110.214 [Amended] 

■ 11. In § 110.214(a)(2)(ii) and (d)(1), 

remove the section reference ’’ 

§ 160.203’’ and add, in its place, the 

section reference ‘‘§ 160.202’’. 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 117.1007 [Amended] 

■ 13. In § 117.1007(b)(2), remove the 

section reference ‘‘160.204’’ and add, in 

its place, the section reference 

‘‘160.202’’. 

PART 118—BRIDGE LIGHTING AND 

OTHER SIGNALS 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 118 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 494; 14 U.S.C. 85, 

633; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 15. In § 118.120, add a new sentence 

at the end of the section to read as 

follows: 

§ 118.120 Radar reflectors and racons. 

* * * The District Commander may 

authorize the use of Automatic 

Identification System Aids to 

Navigation in lieu of or in addition to 

a racon. 

PART 151—VESSELS CARRYING OIL, 

NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, 

GARBAGE, MUNICIPAL OR 

COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST 

WATER 

■ 16. The authority citation for part 151 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1902, 1903, 

1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101; Pub. L. 104–227 (110 

Stat. 3034); Pub. L. 108–293 (118 Stat. 1063), 

§ 623; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; 

DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, sec. 2(77). 

§ 151.2005 [Amended] 

■ 17. In § 151.2005(a), remove the 

reference ‘‘160.204’’ and add, in its 

place, the reference ‘‘160.202’’. 

PART 160—PORTS AND WATERWAYS 

SAFETY—GENERAL 

■ 18. The authority citation for part 160 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart C is 

also issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 

1225 and 46 U.S.C. 3715. 

Subpart C—Notification of Arrival, 

Hazardous Conditions, and Certain 

Dangerous Cargoes 

■ 19. Revise the heading to subpart C to 

read as shown above. 

■ 20. Revise § 160.201 to read as 

follows: 

§ 160.201 General. 

This subpart contains requirements 

and procedures for submitting a notice 

of arrival (NOA), and a notice of 

hazardous condition. The sections in 

this subpart describe: 

(a) Applicability and exemptions from 

requirements in this subpart; 

(b) Required information in an NOA; 

(c) Required updates to an NOA; 

(d) Methods and times for submission 

of an NOA, and updates to an NOA; 

(e) How to obtain a waiver; and 

(f) Requirements for submission of the 

notice of hazardous condition. 

Note to § 160.201. For notice-of-arrival 

requirements for the U.S. Outer Continental 

Shelf, see 33 CFR part 146. 

§ 160.203 [Amended] 

■ 21. Lift the suspension of § 160.203(d) 

and (e). 

160.202, 160.203, and 160.204 

[Redesignated as 160.203, 160.204 and 

160.205] 

■ 22. Redesignate §§ 160.202, 160.203, 

and 160.204, as §§ 160.203, 160.204, 

and 160.202, respectively. 

■ 23. In redesignated § 160.202, revise 

the introductory text, and add 

definitions, in alphabetical order, for 

‘‘boundary waters’’, ‘‘embark’’, ‘‘ferry 

schedule’’, ‘‘foreign vessel’’, and 

‘‘operating exclusively within a single 

Captain of the Port zone’’, to read as 

follows: 

§ 160.202 Definitions. 

Terms in this subpart that are not 

defined in this section or in § 160.3 have 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5331 

the same meaning as those terms in 46 

U.S.C. 2101. As used in this subpart— 

* * * * * 

Boundary waters mean the waters 

from main shore to main shore of the 

lakes and rivers and connecting 

waterways, or the portions thereof, 

along which the international boundary 

between the United States and the 

Dominion of Canada passes, including 

all bays, arms, and inlets thereof, but 

not including tributary waters which in 

their natural channels would flow into 

such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or 

waters flowing from such lakes, rivers, 

and waterways, or the waters of rivers 

flowing across the boundary. 

* * * * * 

Embark means when a crewmember 

or a person in addition to the crew joins 

the vessel. 

Ferry schedule means a published 

document that: 

(1) Identifies locations a ferry travels 

to and from; 

(2) Lists the times of departures and 

arrivals; and 

(3) Identifies the portion of the year in 

which the ferry maintains this schedule. 

Foreign vessel means a vessel of 

foreign registry or operated under the 

authority of a country except the United 

States. 

* * * * * 

Operating exclusively within a single 

Captain of the Port zone refers to vessel 

movements within the boundaries of a 

single COTP zone, e.g., from one dock 

to another, one berth to another, one 

anchorage to another, or any 

combination of such transits. Once a 

vessel has arrived in a port in a COPT 

zone, it would not be considered as 

departing from a port or place simply 

because of its movements within that 

specific port. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. In redesignated § 160.203, remove 

paragraph (b); redesignate paragraphs (c) 

and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c), 

respectively; and revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 160.203 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart applies to the 

following vessels that are bound for or 

departing from ports or places within 

the navigable waters of the United 

States, as defined in 33 CFR 2.36(a), 

which includes internal waters and the 

territorial seas of the United States, and 

any deepwater port as defined in 33 

CFR 148.5: 

(1) U.S. vessels in commercial service, 

and 

(2) All foreign vessels. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. In redesignated § 160.204— 

■ a. Revise the section heading; 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a); 

■ c. From April 30, 2015 through 

December 31, 2015, add temporary 

paragraph (a)(6) to read as set out below; 

and 

■ d. Revise paragraphs (b) through (c) to 

read as set out below; and 

■ e. Remove paragraphs (d) through (f). 

§ 160.204 Exemptions and exceptions. 

(a) Except for reporting notice of 

hazardous conditions, the following 

vessels are exempt from requirements in 

this subpart: 

(1) A passenger or offshore supply 

vessel when employed in the 

exploration for or in the removal of oil, 

gas, or mineral resources on the 

continental shelf. 

(2) An oil spill response vessel 

(OSRV) when engaged in actual spill 

response operations or during spill 

response exercises. 

(3) After December 31, 2015, a vessel 

required by 33 CFR 165.830 or 165.921 

to report its movements, its cargo, or the 

cargo in barges it is towing. 

(4) A United States or Canadian vessel 

engaged in the salving operations of any 

property wrecked, or rendering aid and 

assistance to any vessels wrecked, 

disabled, or in distress, in waters 

specified in Article II of the 1908 Treaty 

of Extradition, Wrecking and Salvage 

(35 Stat. 2035; Treaty Series 502). 

(5) The following vessels neither 

carrying certain dangerous cargo nor 

controlling another vessel carrying 

certain dangerous cargo: 

(i) A foreign vessel 300 gross tons or 

less not engaged in commercial service. 

(ii) A vessel operating exclusively 

within a single Captain of the Port zone. 

Captain of the Port zones are defined in 

33 CFR part 3. 

(iii) A U.S. towing vessel and a U.S. 

barge operating solely between ports or 

places of the contiguous 48 states, 

Alaska, and the District of Columbia. 

(iv) A public vessel. 

(v) Except for a tank vessel, a U.S. 

vessel operating solely between ports or 

places of the United States on the Great 

Lakes. 

(vi) A U.S. vessel 300 gross tons or 

less, engaged in commercial service not 

coming from a foreign port or place. 

(vii) Each ferry on a fixed route that 

is described in an accurate schedule that 

is submitted by the ferry operator, along 

with information in paragraphs 

(a)(5)(vii)(A) through (J) of this section, 

to the Captain of the Port for each port 

or place of destination listed in the 

schedule at least 24 hours in advance of 

the first date and time of arrival listed 

on the schedule. At least 24 hours 

before the first date and time of arrival 

listed on the ferry schedule, each ferry 

operator who submits a schedule under 

paragraph (a)(5)(vii) of this section must 

also provide the following information 

to the Captain of the Port for each port 

or place of destination listed in the 

schedule for the ferry, and if the 

schedule or the following submitted 

information changes, the ferry operator 

must submit an updated schedule at 

least 24 hours in advance of the first 

date and time of arrival listed on the 

new schedule and updates on the 

following items whenever the submitted 

information is no longer accurate: 

(A) Name of the vessel; 

(B) Country of registry of the vessel; 

(C) Call sign of the vessel; 

(D) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) international 

number or, if the vessel does not have 

an assigned IMO international number, 

the official number of the vessel; 

(E) Name of the registered owner of 

the vessel; 

(F) Name of the operator of the vessel; 

(G) Name of the vessel’s classification 

society or recognized organization, if 

applicable; 

(H) Each port or place of destination; 

(I) Estimated dates and times of 

arrivals at and departures from these 

ports or places; and 

(J) Name and telephone number of a 

24-hour point of contact. 

(6) From April 30, 2015 through 

December 31, 2015, vessels identified as 

being subject to 33 CFR 165.830 or 

165.921. 

(b) A vessel less than 500 gross tons 

is not required to submit the 

International Safety Management (ISM) 

Code Notice (Entry 7 in Table 160.206 

of § 160.206). 

(c) A U.S. vessel is not required to 

submit the International Ship and Port 

Facility Security (ISPS) Code Notice 

information (Entry 8 in Table 160.206 of 

§ 160.206). 

■ 26. Add § 160.205 to read as follow: 

§ 160.205 Notices of arrival. 

The owner, agent, Master, operator, or 

person in charge of a vessel must submit 

notices of arrival consistent with the 

requirements in this subpart. 

■ 27. In § 160.206, lift the suspension of 

item (8) in Table 160.206 of paragraph 

(a), and revise § 160.206 to read as 

follows: 

§ 160.206 Information required in an NOA. 

(a) Information required. With the 

exceptions noted in paragraph (b) of this 

section, each NOA must contain all of 

the information items specified in Table 

160.206. Vessel owners and operators 

should protect any personal information 

they gather in preparing notices for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

transmittal to the National Vessel 

Movement Center (NVMC) to prevent 

unauthorized disclosure of that 

information. 

TABLE 160.206—NOA INFORMATION ITEMS

Required information 

Vessels 

neither carrying CDC nor 

controlling another vessel 

carrying CDC 

Vessels 

carrying CDC 

or controlling 

another vessel 

carrying CDC 

(1) Vessel Information: 

(i) Name; X X 

(ii) Name of the registered owner; X X 

(iii) Country of registry; X X 

(iv) Call sign; X X 

(v) International Maritime Organization (IMO) international number or, if vessel does not have an assigned 

IMO international number, substitute with official number; X X 

(vi) Name of the operator; X X 

(vii) Name of charterer; X X 

(viii) Name of classification society or recognized organization; X X 

(ix) Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number, if applicable; X X 

(x) Whether the vessel is 300 gross tons or less (yes or no); and X X 

(xi) USCG Vessel Response Plan Control Number, if applicable. X X 

(2) Voyage Information: 

(i) Names of last five foreign ports or places visited; X X 

(ii) Dates of arrival and departure for last five foreign ports or places visited; X X 

(iii) For the port or place of the United States to be visited, list the name of the receiving facility, the port 

or place, the city, and the state; X X 

(iv) For the port or place of the United States to be visited, the estimated date and time of arrival; X X 

(v) For the port or place in the United States to be visited, the estimated date and time of departure; X X 

(vi) The location (port or place and country) or position (latitude and longitude or waterway and mile marker) of the vessel at the time of reporting; X X 

(vii) The name and telephone number of a 24-hour point of contact; X X 

(viii) Whether the vessel’s voyage time is less than 24 hours (yes or no); X X 

(ix) Last port or place of departure; and X X 

(x) Dates of arrival and departure for last port or place of departure. X X 

(3) Cargo Information: 

(i) A general description of cargo, other than CDC, on board the vessel (e.g., grain, container, oil, etc.); X X 

(ii) Name of each CDC carried, including cargo UN number, if applicable; and ........................ X 

(iii) Amount of each CDC carried. ........................ X 

(4) Information for each Crewmember On Board: 

(i) Full name; X X 

(ii) Date of birth; X X 

(iii) Nationality; X X 

(iv) Passport * or mariner’s document number (type of identification and number); X X 

(v) Position or duties on the vessel; and X X 

(vi) Where the crewmember embarked (list port or place and country). X X 

(5) Information for each Person On Board in Addition to Crew: 

(i) Full name; X X 

(ii) Date of birth; X X 

(iii) Nationality; X X 

(iv) Passport number; * and X X 

(v) Where the person embarked (list port or place and country). X X 

(6) Operational condition of equipment required by 33 CFR part 164 of this chapter (see note to table): X X 

(7) International Safety Management (ISM) Code Notice: 

(i) The date of expiration for the company’s Document of Compliance certificate that covers the vessel; X X 

(ii) The date of expiration for the vessel’s Safety Management Certificate; and X X 

(iii) The name of the Flag Administration, or the recognized organization(s) representing the vessel Flag 

Administration, that issued those certificates. X X 

(8) International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) Notice: 

(i) The date of issuance for the vessel’s International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC), if any; X X 

(ii) Whether the ISSC, if any, is an initial Interim ISSC, subsequent and consecutive Interim ISSC, or final 

ISSC; X X 

(iii) Declaration that the approved ship security plan, if any, is being implemented; X X 

(iv) If a subsequent and consecutive Interim ISSC, the reasons therefore; X X 

(v) The name and 24-hour contact information for the Company Security Officer; and X X 

(vi) The name of the Flag Administration or the recognized security organization(s) representing the vessel Flag Administration that issued the ISSC. X X 

Note to Table 160.206. For items with an asterisk (*), see paragraph (b) of this section. Submitting a response for item 6 indicating that navigation equipment is not operating properly does not serve as notice to the District Commander, Captain of the Port, or Vessel Traffic Center, 

under 33 CFR 164.53. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5333 

(b) Exceptions. If a crewmember or 

person on board other than a 

crewmember is not required to carry a 

passport for travel, then passport 

information required in Table 160.206 

by items (4)(iv) and (5) (iv) need not be 

provided for that person. 

■ 28. In § 160.208— 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the 

reference to ‘‘(5)(v)’’, and in its place, 

add ‘‘(4)(vii)’’, 

■ b. Revise the section heading and 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 160.208 Updates to a submitted NOA. 

(a) Unless otherwise specified in this 

section, whenever events cause NOA 

information submitted for a vessel to 

become inaccurate, or the submitter to 

realize that data submitted was 

inaccurate, the owner, agent, Master, 

operator, or person in charge of that 

vessel must submit an update within the 

times required in § 160.212. 

* * * * * 

(c) When reporting updates, revise 

and resubmit the NOA. 

■ 29. In § 160.210, lift the suspension of 

the last sentence of paragraph (b), the 

last sentence of paragraph (c), and 

paragraph (d); and revise § 160.210 to 

read as follows: 

§ 160.210 Methods for submitting an NOA. 

(a) National Vessel Movement Center 

(NVMC). Except as otherwise provided 

in this paragraph or paragraph (b) of this 

section, vessels must submit NOA 

information required by § 160.206 to the 

NVMC using methods currently 

specified at www.nvmc.uscg.gov, which 

includes submission through the NVMC 

electronic Notice of Arrival and 

Departure (eNOAD) World Wide Web 

site, and XML, which includes the Excel 

Workbook format. These data may also 

be submitted using other methods that 

may be added as future options on 

www.nvmc.uscg.gov. XML spreadsheets 

may be submitted via email to enoad@

nvmc.uscg.gov. If a vessel operator must 

submit an NOA or an update, for a 

vessel in an area without internet access 

or when experiencing technical 

difficulties with an onboard computer, 

and he or she has no shore-side support 

available, the vessel operator may fax or 

phone the submission to the NVMC. Fax 

at 1–800–547–8724 or 304–264–2684. 

Workbook available at 

www.nvmc.uscg.gov; or, telephone at 1– 

800–708–9823 or 304–264–2502. 

(b) Saint Lawrence Seaway. Those 

vessels transiting the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway inbound, bound for a port or 

place in the United States, may meet the 

submission requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section by submitting the 

required information to the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation and the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Management Corporation of 

Canada using methods specified at 

www.nvmc.uscg.gov. 

■ 30. In § 160.212, lift the suspension of 

paragraph (c), and revise § 160.212 to 

read as follows: 

§ 160.212 When to submit an NOA. 

(a) Submission of an NOA. (1) Except 

as set out in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) 

of this section, all vessels must submit 

NOAs within the times required in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 

(2) Towing vessels, when in control of 

a vessel carrying CDC and operating 

solely between ports or places of the 

contiguous 48 states, Alaska, and the 

District of Columbia, must submit an 

NOA before departure but at least 12 

hours before arriving at the port or place 

of destination. 

(3) U.S. vessels 300 gross tons or less, 

arriving from a foreign port or place, 

and whose voyage time is less than 24 

hours must submit an NOA at least 60 

minutes before departure from the 

foreign port or place. Also, Canadian 

vessels 300 gross tons or less, arriving 

directly from Canada, via boundary 

waters, to a United States port or place 

on the Great Lakes, whose voyage time 

is less than 24 hours must submit an 

NOA at least 60 minutes before 

departure from the Canadian port or 

place. 

(4) Times for submitting NOAs are as 

follows: 

If your voyage time is— Then you must submit an NOA— 

(i) 96 hours or more; or ........ At least 96 hours before arriving at the port or place of destination; or 

(ii) Less than 96 hours ......... Before departure but at least 24 hours before arriving at the port or place of destination. 

(b) Submission of updates to an NOA. 

(1) Except as set out in paragraphs (b)(2) 

and (b)(3) of this section, vessels must 

submit updates in NOA information 

within the times required in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. 

(2) Towing vessels, when in control of 

a vessel carrying CDC and operating 

solely between ports or places in the 

contiguous 48 states, Alaska, and the 

District of Columbia, must submit 

updates to an NOA as soon as 

practicable but at least 6 hours before 

entering the port or place of destination. 

(3) U.S. vessels 300 gross tons or less, 

arriving from a foreign port or place, 

whose voyage time is— 

(i) Less than 24 hours but greater than 

6 hours, must submit updates to an 

NOA as soon as practicable, but at least 

6 hours before entering the port or place 

of destination. 

(ii) Less than or equal to 6 hours, must 

submit updates to an NOA as soon as 

practicable, but at least 60 minutes 

before departure from the foreign port or 

place. 

(4) Times for submitting updates to 

NOAs are as follows: 

If your remaining voyage 

time is— Then you must submit updates to an NOA— 

(i) 96 hours or more; As soon as practicable, but at least 24 hours before arriving at the port or place of destination; 

(ii) Less than 96 hours but 

not less than 24 hours; or.

As soon as practicable, but at least 24 hours before arriving at the port or place of destination; or 

(iii) Less than 24 hours ........ As soon as practicable, but at least 12 hours before arriving at the port or place of destination. 

§ 160.215 [Redesignated as § 160.216] 

■ 31. Redesignate § 160.215 as 

§ 160.216, and add a new § 160.215 to 

read as follows: 

§ 160.215 Force majeure. 

When a vessel is bound for a port or 

place of the United States under force 

majeure, it must comply with the 

requirements in this section, but not 

other sections of this subpart. The vessel 

must report the following information to 

the nearest Captain of the Port as soon 

as practicable: 

(a) The vessel Master’s intentions; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Any hazardous conditions as 

defined in § 160.202; and 

(c) If the vessel is carrying certain 

dangerous cargo or controlling a vessel 

carrying certain dangerous cargo, the 

amount and name of each CDC carried, 

including cargo UN number if 

applicable. 

PART 161—VESSEL TRAFFIC 

MANAGEMENT 

■ 32. The authority citation for part 161 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

70114, 70117; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 

2064; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 33. In § 161.2, revise the definition of 

‘‘VTS User’’ to read as follows: 

§ 161.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

VTS User means a vessel or an owner, 

operator, charterer, Master, or person 

directing the movement of a vessel 

within a VTS area that is: 

(1) Subject to the Vessel Bridge-toBridge Radiotelephone Act; 

(2) Required to participate in a VMRS; 

or 

(3) Equipped with a Coast Guard typeapproved Automatic Identification 

System (AIS). 

* * * * * 

■ 34. In § 161.5, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 161.5 Deviations from the rules. 

* * * * * 

(b) Requests to deviate from any 

provision in this part due to 

circumstances that develop during a 

transit or immediately preceding a 

transit may be made to the appropriate 

Vessel Traffic Center (VTC). Requests to 

deviate must be made as far in advance 

as practicable. Upon receipt of the 

request, the VTC may authorize a 

deviation if it is determined that, based 

on vessel handling characteristics, 

traffic density, radar contacts, 

environmental conditions and other 

relevant information, such a deviation 

provides a level of safety equivalent to 

that provided by the required measure 

or is a maneuver considered necessary 

for safe navigation under the 

circumstances. 

§ 161.12 [Amended] 

■ 35. In § 161.12, in paragraph (c), 

remove the words ‘‘§§ 161.21 and 

164.46 of this subchapter’’ from the last 

sentence of Note 1 of table 161.12(c), 

and add, in their place, the words 

‘‘§ 161.21’’; and in paragraph (d)(5), 

remove the section reference 

‘‘§ 160.204’’ and add, in its place, the 

section reference ‘‘§ 160.202’’. 

■ 36. In § 161.19, revise paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 161.19 Sailing Plan (SP). 

* * * * * 

(f) Dangerous cargo on board or in its 

tow, as defined in § 160.202 of this 

chapter. 

PART 164—NAVIGATION SAFETY 

REGULATIONS 

■ 37. The authority citation for part 164 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1222(5), 1223, 1231; 

46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 

58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 

U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.46 also issued under 46 

U.S.C. 70114 and Sec. 102 of Pub. L. 107– 

295. Sec. 164.61 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 

6101. 

■ 38. In § 164.02, revise the introductory 

text of paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 164.02 Applicability exception for foreign 

vessels. 

(a) Except for § 164.46(c), none of the 

requirements of this part apply to 

foreign vessels that: 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Revise § 164.03 to read as follows: 

§ 164.03 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish notice of 

the change in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For more information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/

ibr-locations.html. Also, it is available 

for inspection at the Commandant (CG– 

NAV), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7418, 

Attn: Office of Navigation Systems, 2703 

Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., 

Washington, DC 20593–7418, and is 

available from the sources listed below. 

(b) American Petroleum Institute 

(API), 1220 L Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20005–4070, 202–682–8000, 

www.api.org: 

(1) API Specification 9A, 

Specification for Wire Rope, Section 3, 

Properties and Tests for Wire and Wire 

Rope, May 28, 1984, IBR approved for 

§ 164.74. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959, 610–832–9585, 

www.astm.org: 

(1) ASTM D4268–93, Standard Test 

Method for Testing Fiber Rope, IBR 

approved for § 164.74. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) Cordage Institute, 350 Lincoln 

Street, Hingham, MA 02043. 

(1) CIA–3, Standard Test Methods for 

Fiber Rope Including Standard 

Terminations, Revised, June 1980, IBR 

approved for § 164.74. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), 4 Albert 

Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United 

Kingdom, www.imo.org: 

(1) IMO Resolution A342(IX), 

Recommendation on Performance 

Standards for Automatic Pilots, 

November 12, 1975, IBR approved for 

§ 164.13. 

(2) IMO Resolution A.917(22), 

Guidelines for the Onboard Operational 

Use of Shipborne Automatic 

Identification System (AIS), January 25, 

2002, IBR approved for § 164.46. 

(3) Resolution MSC.74(69), Annex 3, 

Recommendation on Performance 

Standards for a Universal Shipborne 

Automatic Identification System (AIS), 

May 12, 1998, IBR approved for 

§ 164.46. 

(4) SN/Circ.227, Guidelines for the 

Installation of a Shipborne Automatic 

Identification System (AIS), January 6, 

2003, IBR approved for § 164.46. 

(5) SN/Circ.244, Guidance on the Use 

of the UN/LOCODE in the Destination 

Field in AIS Messages, December 15, 

2004, IBR approved for § 164.46. 

(6) SN/Circ.245, Amendments to the 

Guidelines for the Installation of a 

Shipborne Automatic Identification 

System (AIS)(SN/Circ.227), December 

15, 2004, IBR approved for § 164.46. 

(7) SOLAS, International Convention 

for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and 

1988 Protocol relating thereto, 2000 

Amendments, effective January and July 

2002, (SOLAS 2000 Amendments), IBR 

approved for § 164.46. 

(8) Conference resolution 1, Adoption 

of amendments to the Annex to the 

International Convention for the Safety 

of Life at Sea, 1974, and amendments to 

Chapter V of SOLAS 1974, adopted on 

December 12, 2002, IBR approved for 

§ 164.46. 

(9) SN.1/Circ.289, Guidance on the 

Use of AIS Application-Specific 

Messages, June 2, 2010, IBR approved 

for § 164.46. 

(f) National Marine Electronics 

Association (NMEA), 7 Riggs Avenue, 

Severna Park, MD 21146, 800–808– 

6632, www.nmea.org: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5335 

(1) NMEA 0400, Installation Standard 

for Marine Electronic Equipment used 

on Moderate-Sized Vessels, Version 

3.10, February 2012, IBR approved for 

§ 164.46. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(g) Radio Technical Commission for 

Maritime Services (RTCM), 1611 N. 

Kent St., Suite 605, Arlington, VA 

22209, 703–527–2000, www.rtcm.org: 

(1) RTCM Paper 12–78/DO–100, 

Minimum Performance Standards, 

Loran C Receiving Equipment, 1977, 

IBR approved for § 164.41. 

(2) RTCM Paper 71–95/SC112–STD, 

RTCM Recommended Standards for 

Marine Radar Equipment Installed on 

Ships of Less Than 300 Tons Gross 

Tonnage, Version 1.1, October 10, 1995, 

IBR approved for § 164.72. 

(3) RTCM Paper 191–93/SC112–X, 

RTCM Recommended Standards for 

Maritime Radar Equipment Installed on 

Ships of 300 Tons Gross Tonnage and 

Upwards, Version 1.2, December 20, 

1993, IBR approved for § 164.72. 

§ 164.43 [Removed] 

■ 40. Remove § 164.43. 

■ 41. Revise § 164.46 to read as follows: 

§ 164.46 Automatic Identification System. 

(a) Definitions. As used in this 

section—Automatic Identification 

Systems or AIS means a maritime 

navigation safety communications 

system standardized by the 

International Telecommunication Union 

(ITU), adopted by the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO), that— 

(1) Provides vessel information, 

including the vessel’s identity, type, 

position, course, speed, navigational 

status and other safety-related 

information automatically to 

appropriately equipped shore stations, 

other ships, and aircraft; 

(2) Receives automatically such 

information from similarly fitted ships, 

monitors and tracks ships; and 

(3) Exchanges data with shore-based 

facilities. 

Gross tonnage means tonnage as 

defined under the International 

Convention on Tonnage Measurement of 

Ships, 1969. 

International voyage means a voyage 

from a country to which the present 

International Convention for the Safety 

of Life at Sea applies to a port outside 

such country, or conversely. 

Properly installed, operational means 

an Automatic Identification System 

(AIS) that is installed and operated 

using the guidelines set forth by the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) Resolution A.917(22) and Safety 

of Navigation Circulars (SN/Circ.) 227, 

244, 245, and SN.1/Circ.289; or National 

Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) 

Installation Standard 0400–3.10 in lieu 

of SN/Circ.227 and 245 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 164.03). 

(b) AIS carriage—(1) AIS Class A 

device. The following vessels must have 

on board a properly installed, 

operational Coast Guard type-approved 

AIS Class A device: 

(i) A self-propelled vessel of 65 feet or 

more in length, engaged in commercial 

service. 

(ii) A towing vessel of 26 feet or more 

in length and more than 600 

horsepower, engaged in commercial 

service. 

(iii) A vessel that is certificated to 

carry more than 150 passengers. 

(iv) A self-propelled vessel engaged in 

dredging operations in or near a 

commercial channel or shipping fairway 

in a manner likely to restrict or affect 

navigation of other vessels. 

(v) A self-propelled vessel engaged in 

the movement of— 

(A) Certain dangerous cargo as 

defined in subpart C of part 160 of this 

chapter, or 

(B) Flammable or combustible liquid 

cargo in bulk that is listed in 46 CFR 

30.25–1, Table 30.25–1. 

(2) AIS Class B device. Use of a Coast 

Guard type-approved AIS Class B device 

in lieu of an AIS Class A device is 

permissible on the following vessels if 

they are not subject to pilotage by other 

than the vessel Master or crew: 

(i) Fishing industry vessels; 

(ii) Vessels identified in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) of this section that are 

certificated to carry less than 150 

passengers and that— 

(A) Do not operate in a Vessel Traffic 

Service (VTS) or Vessel Movement 

Reporting System (VMRS) area defined 

in Table 161.12(c) of § 161.12 of this 

chapter, and 

(B) Do not operate at speeds in excess 

of 14 knots; and 

(iii) Vessels identified in paragraph 

(b)(1)(iv) of this section engaged in 

dredging operations. 

Note to paragraph (b): Under 33 U.S.C. 

1223(b)(3) and 33 CFR 160.111, a Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) may 

restrict the operation of a vessel if he or she 

determines that by reason of weather, 

visibility, sea conditions, port congestion, 

other hazardous circumstances, or the 

condition of such vessel, the restriction is 

justified in the interest of safety. In certain 

circumstances, if a COTP is concerned that 

the operation of a vessel not subject to 

§ 164.46 would be unsafe, the COTP may 

determine that voluntary installation of AIS 

by the operator would mitigate that concern. 

(c) SOLAS provisions. The following 

self-propelled vessels must comply with 

International Convention for Safety of 

Life at Sea (SOLAS), as amended, 

Chapter V, regulation 19.2.1.6 

(Positioning System), 19.2.4 (AIS Class 

A), and 19.2.3.5 (Transmitting Heading 

Device) or 19.2.5.1 (Gyro Compass) as 

applicable (Incorporated by reference, 

see § 164.03): 

(1) A vessel of 300 gross tonnage or 

more, on an international voyage. 

(2) A vessel of 150 gross tonnage or 

more, when carrying more than 12 

passengers on an international voyage. 

(d) Operations. The requirements in 

this paragraph are applicable to any 

vessel equipped with AIS. 

(1) Use of AIS does not relieve the 

vessel of the requirements to sound 

whistle signals or display lights or 

shapes in accordance with the 

International Regulations for Preventing 

Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), 

28 U.S.T. 3459, T.I.A.S. 8587, or Inland 

Navigation Rules, 33 CFR part 83; nor of 

the radio requirements of the Vessel 

Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act, 33 

U.S.C. 1201–1208, part 26 of this 

chapter, and 47 CFR part 80. 

(2) AIS must be maintained in 

effective operating condition, which 

includes— 

(i) The ability to reinitialize the AIS, 

which requires access to and knowledge 

of the AIS power source and password; 

(ii) The ability to access AIS 

information from the primary conning 

position of the vessel; 

(iii) The accurate broadcast of a 

properly assigned Maritime Mobile 

Service Identity (MMSI) number; 

(iv) The accurate input and upkeep of 

all AIS data fields and system updates; 

and 

(v) For those vessels denoted in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the 

continual operation of AIS and its 

associated devices (e.g., positioning 

system, gyro, converters, displays) at all 

times while the vessel is underway or at 

anchor, and, if moored, at least 15 

minutes prior to getting underway; 

except when its operation would 

compromise the safety or security of the 

vessel or a security incident is 

imminent. The AIS should be returned 

to continuous operation as soon as the 

compromise has been mitigated or the 

security incident has passed. The time 

and reason for the silent period should 

be recorded in the ship’s official log and 

reported to the nearest Captain of the 

Port or Vessel Traffic Center (VTC). 

(3) AIS safety-related text messaging 

must be conducted in English and solely 

to exchange or communicate pertinent 

navigation safety information 

(analogous to a SECURITE broadcast). 

Although not prohibited, AIS text 

messaging should not be relied upon as 

the primary means for broadcasting 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

distress (MAYDAY) or urgent (PAN 

PAN) communications. (47 CFR 

80.1109, Distress, urgency, and safety 

communications). 

(4) AIS application-specific messaging 

(ASM) is permissible, but is limited to 

applications adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization 

(such as IMO SN.1/Circ.289) or those 

denoted in the International Association 

of Marine Aids to Navigation and 

Lighthouse Authorities’ (IALA) ASM 

Collection for use in the United States 

or Canada, and to no more than one 

ASM per minute. 

Note to paragraph (d): The Coast Guard has 

developed the ‘‘U.S. AIS Encoding Guide’’ to 

help ensure consistent and accurate data 

encoding (input) by AIS users. This Guide is 

available at our ‘‘AIS Frequently Asked 

Questions’’ (FAQ #2) World Wide Web page 

at www.navcen.uscg.gov. Although of great 

benefit, the interfacing or installation of other 

external devices or displays (e.g., 

transmitting heading device, gyro, rate of 

turn indicator, electronic charting systems, 

and radar), is not currently required except 

as denoted in § 164.46(c). Most applicationspecific messages require interfacing to an 

external system that is capable of their 

portrayal, such as equipment certified to 

meet Radio Technical Commission for 

Maritime Services (RTCM) electronic chart 

system (ECS) standard 10900 series. 

(e) Watchkeeping. AIS is primarily 

intended for use by the Master or person 

in charge of the vessel, or by the person 

designated by the Master or person in 

charge to pilot or direct the movement 

of the vessel, who must maintain a 

periodic watch for AIS information. 

(f) Portable AIS. The use of a portable 

AIS is permissible only to the extent 

that electromagnetic interference does 

not affect the proper function of existing 

navigation and communication 

equipment on board and such that only 

one AIS device may be transmitting on 

board a vessel at any one time. 

(g) AIS Pilot Plug. The AIS Pilot Plug 

on any vessel subject to pilotage by 

other than the vessel Master or crew 

must be readily available and easily 

accessible from the primary conning 

position of the vessel and permanently 

affixed (not an extension cord) and 

adjacent (within 3 feet) to a 120-volt 50/ 

60 Hz AC power receptacle (NEMA 5– 

15). 

(h) Exceptions. The following vessels 

may seek up to a 5-year deviation from 

the AIS requirements of this section by 

requesting a deviation under § 164.55. 

(1) Vessels that operate solely within 

a very confined area (e.g., less than a 1 

nautical-mile radius, shipyard, or barge 

fleeting facility); 

(2) Vessels that conduct only short 

voyages (less than 1 nautical mile) on a 

fixed schedule (e.g., a bank-to-bank river 

ferry service or a tender vessel); 

(3) Vessels that are not likely to 

encounter other AIS-equipped vessels; 

(4) Vessels whose design or 

construction makes it impracticable to 

operate an AIS device (e.g., those that 

lack electrical power, have an exposed 

or open cabin, or are submersible); or 

(5) Vessels denoted in paragraph 

(b)(2) that seek a deviation from 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) 

and (e) of this section because their AIS 

Class B device lacks a display. 

(i) Prohibition. Except for maritime 

support stations (see 47 CFR 80.5) 

licensed by the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), 

broadcasts from AIS Class A or B 

devices on aircraft, non-self propelled 

vessels or from land are prohibited. 

(j) Implementation date. Those vessels 

identified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section that were not previously 

subject to AIS carriage must install AIS 

no later than March 1, 2016. 

§ 164.53 [Amended] 

■ 42. In § 164.53(b), after the word 

‘‘vessel’s’’, add the phrase ’’automatic 

identification system (AIS),’’. 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 43. The authority citation for part 165 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 165.503 [Amended] 

■ 44. In § 165.503(a), in the definition of 

Certain dangerous cargo or CDC, 

remove the section reference ‘‘160.204’’ 

and add, in its place, the section 

reference ‘‘160.202’’. 

§ 165.510 [Amended] 

■ 45. In § 165.510(b), in the definition of 

Dangerous Cargo, remove the section 

reference ‘‘§ 160.203’’ and add, in its 

place, the section reference ‘‘§ 160.202’’. 

§ 165.753 [Amended] 

■ 46. In § 165.753(c)(6), remove the 

reference ‘‘160.203’’ and add, in its 

place, the reference ‘‘160.202’’. 

§ 165.811 [Amended] 

■ 47. In § 165.811(e)(2), remove the 

section reference ‘‘§ 160.203’’ and add, 

in its place, the section reference 

‘‘§ 160.202’’. 

§ 165.830 [Amended] 

■ 48. In § 165.830(c), in the definition of 

Barge, remove the reference ‘‘160.204’’ 

and add, in its place, the reference 

‘‘160.202’’. 

§ 165.921 [Amended] 

■ 49. In § 165.921(c), in the definition of 

Barge, remove the reference ‘‘160.204’’ 

and add, in its place, the reference 

‘‘160.202’’. 

§ 165.1181 [Amended] 

■ 50. In § 165.1181(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), 

remove the words ‘‘section 160.203’’ 

and add, in their place, the section 

reference ‘‘§ 160.202’’. 

§ 165.1183 [Amended] 

■ 51. In § 165.1183(a)(2), in the 

definition of High Value Asset, remove 

the reference ‘‘160.204’’ and add, in its 

place, the reference ‘‘160.202’’. 

§ 165.1704 [Amended] 

■ 52. In § 165.1704— 

■ a. In paragraph (c)(4), after the 

punctuation mark ‘‘;’’, add the word 

‘‘and’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(5), after the term ‘‘6 

knots’’, remove the text ‘‘; and’’ and add, 

in its place, the punctuation mark ‘‘.’’; 

and 

■ c. Remove paragraph (c)(6). 

Title 46—Shipping 

PART 4—MARINE CASUALTIES AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

■ 53. The authority citation for part 4 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 

46 U.S.C. 2103, 2303a, 2306, 6101, 6301, and 

6305; 50 U.S.C. 198; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Subpart 4.40 issued under 49 U.S.C. 

1903(a)(1)(E). 

§ 4.05–1 [Amended] 

■ 54. In § 4.05–1(b), remove the 

reference ‘‘160.204’’ and add, in its 

place, the reference ‘‘160.202’’. 

PART 148—CARRIAGE OF BULK 

SOLID MATERIALS THAT REQUIRE 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

■ 55. The authority citation for part 148 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1602; E.O. 12234, 45 

FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 46 

U.S.C. 3306, 5111; 49 U.S.C. 5103; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 148.11 [Amended] 

■ 56. In § 148.11(b), in the last row of 

the Table of Hazardous or Potentially 

Dangerous Characteristics, remove the 

reference ‘‘160.204’’ and add, in its 

place, the reference ‘‘160.202’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5337 

Dated: January 15, 2015. 

Paul F. Zukunft, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01331 Filed 1–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES