Document ID: USCG-2014-0713-0026
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Notice
Title: Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget;
OMB Control Number: 1625–NEW
Posted Date: 2021-07-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40604-40606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15987]

[[Page 40604]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0713]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and 
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-NEW

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request 
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for the 
following collection of information: 1625-NEW, State Registration Data. 
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. 
Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting 
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 27, 
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number [USCG-2014-0713] to the Coast Guard using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public 
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet 
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available 
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. 
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710, 
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy 
Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions 
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to 
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard 
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information 
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on 
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, 
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one 
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be 
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper 
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard 
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the 
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; 
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information 
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the 
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not 
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider 
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments 
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of 
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2014-0713], and 
must be received by September 27, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public 
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and 
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, 
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will 
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and 
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System 
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    The Coast Guard previously published two, 60-day notices (79 FR 
60483, October 7, 2014, and 81 FR 85987, November 29, 2016) and one, 
30-day notice (83 FR 54128, October 26, 2018) required by 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2). Those three notices elicited ten public comment 
submissions. Following this paragraph, we list the specific concerns or 
questions raised in those ten submissions. We also list the comments 
and questions we received from Coast Guard staff that may be helpful to 
clarify for the public. Following the comment description, we provide 
our updated responses, including descriptions of any changes we made to 
the ICR and forms. The Coast Guard is publishing an additional 60-day 
notice for public commenting due to the significant time that has 
elapsed since the previous notices were published.
    Comment (1): A requestor asks the Coast Guard to consider mandating 
to states that personal watercraft (PWC) data collection is separately 
maintained. This will ensure accuracy in the entirety of boat 
classification data collection and significantly aid PWC manufacturers 
in market assessment.
    Answer: The Coast Guard is maintaining the personal watercraft 
category in our proposed data collection (see 33 CFR 174.19(a)(11)); we 
proposed to collect statistics on personal watercraft by length 
category.
    Comment (2): A commenter stated that the Coast Guard's tabulation 
of State numbered vessels as a result of this Information Collection 
Request (ICR) cannot be used to measure risk as stated in the 
supplemental Paperwork Reduction Act submission that accompanies this 
ICR, especially since there are numerous recreational boating accidents 
and fatalities that occur in vessels not required to be numbered and 
not reflected in this collection of information.
    Answer: Information in the proposed collection will be used to 
measure risk; Registration data frequently serves as the denominator of 
fatality rates (usually expressed in number of deaths per 100,000 
registered vessels). The existence of registration data allows the 
Coast Guard to normalize data and provide meaningful statistics and 
recommendations for the National Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) 
Program. The revised collection proposed to break down registration by 
motorization so that an additional measure, motorized vessel fatality 
rate, could be used (number of deaths on motorized vessels per 100,000 
motorized registered vessels). This measure would provide a much 
sounder denominator since all States do not collect registration data 
on non-motorized vessels.
    Comment (3): A commenter noted that in accordance with 33 CFR 
174.123, each State that has an approved numbering system must prepare 
and submit Coast Guard form CGHQ-3923,

[[Page 40605]]

Report of Certificates of Number Issued to Boats, to the Coast Guard. 
Although OMB No. 1625-NEW reflects the revised vessel type terminology 
resulting from the Coast Guard's 2012 issuance of the Final Rule on 
Canges to Standard Numbering System, Vessel Identification System, and 
Boating Accident Report Database (Docket No. USCG-2003-14963), it does 
not accurately reflect the CFR's terminology in its title or 
instructions (i.e., all references to the approved numbering system, 
state numbered boats and certificates of number have been replaced with 
registrations and registered).
    Answer: This is true. The proposed form focuses on registered 
vessels, which allows the Coast Guard to examine a larger scope of 
vessels that fall under the National Recreational Boating Safety 
Program. The Coast Guard will consider changes to the form title in 33 
CFR 174.123 to more accurately reflect the data collection under this 
Information Collection Request.
    Comment (4): A commenter noted that OMB No. 1625-NEW is dated June 
2014, inferring that is already in use (or may be required for use). 
Because States are currently in various stages of implementation of the 
Final Rule (with final implementation required by January 1, 2017), 
States cannot be compelled to begin using OMB No. 1625-NEW prior to 
January 1, 2017. Any required deviation from the use of CGHQ-3923 prior 
to January 1, 2017 will result in additional (and in some cases, 
significant) burden and cost to the States.
    Answer: The June 2014 date was filled in as a placeholder. The form 
was drafted and sent for comment early so that the public could comment 
on the proposed content, and the States could prepare for changes after 
the data collection is finalized. The Coast Guard has accepted but not 
required a State's use of this form.
    Comment (5): At this time, the state of Ohio is still in the 
process of transitioning to the new requirements cited in 33 CFR 174.19 
(which we are required to implement by January 1, 2017). That being the 
case, what are the Coast Guard's intentions with regard to the version 
of the reporting form we will need to use to make our annual reporting 
in 2015 and beyond? Will we have the option to use the ``older'' 
version of the reporting form until such time that we have transitioned 
to the new requirements? And, if required to use the new form prior to 
that transition, how will the Coast Guard view any incomplete data that 
might not be able to be generated in the new format prior to completion 
of the transition?
    Answer: The Coast Guard has accepted but not required a State's use 
of this form.
    Comment (6): Knowing that hull type, and more importantly engine 
drive information can be important details in better identifying and 
understanding the boating demographics within a state, what is the 
rationale for omitting this information in this revised collection 
form?
    Answer: The Coast Guard has not used the hull material or engine 
information collected in prior registration collections. Because we 
have not used the data, we removed it from the form so as to reduce the 
burden of data reporting on the States.
    Comment (7): Do the estimates of the form completion burden account 
for any initial burden in transitioning to this revised reporting 
scheme? What is the basis for estimates of burden in items 12 and 13 of 
the Supporting Statement for the collection?
    Answer: No. The burden estimate took into account the collection of 
information, which is based on the number of respondents, frequency of 
form submission and an estimate of the time taken to fill out the form.
    Comment (8) is: Is there any relationship between this revision and 
anticipated efforts to bring CFR into agreement with the Uniform 
Certificate of Titling Act for Vessels (UCOTA-V)?
    Answer: There is not a relationship between this revision and the 
UCOTA-V efforts.
    Comment (9): Under Puerto Rico law, a Ship or vessel means any 
system of transportation on water that has a motor installed, 
including, but without been limited to jet skis, motorized rafts, power 
sailboats, motor boats, or powered driven boats of any sort, including 
homemade vessels powered by motor, but excluding hydroplanes. A 
watercraft means a mode of transportation which does not have a motor 
installed, such as rowboats, canoes, kayaks, sailboats with or without 
oars, water skis, surfboards with or without sail, rafts, inflatable 
systems, and any device that moves on the surface of the water without 
being propelled by a motor, although it could be fit for installation 
or adaptation of some type of motor. Therefore, the proposed change 
creates an overburden of conflicting definitions or wording to deal 
with in this case. Also, the removal of the proposed definitions leaves 
the accident investigation protocol without proper wording to aid in 
the determination of felonies, infractions, or misdemeanors committed.
    Answer: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice requesting 
comments on this information collection. Please use the definitions in 
33 CFR 173.3 for this information collection.
    Comment (10): SS173.57: Same comment as in the previous paragraph. 
Mainly, when evaluating marine events involving either vessels, 
watercrafts, or both. It may also affect the terms and conditions of 
the memorandum of Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico and the USCG under 14 U.S.C. SS2,89,141; 46 CFR SS13109 
and 33 CFR SS100.01 as to comply with 46 U.S.C. 13103(c)(2) on the 
matter of marine events and boat accident reports procedures.
    Answer: This collection of information does not relate to marine 
events or boat accident report procedures. Therefore, this comment is 
outside the scope of the Notice requesting comments on the collection.
    Comment (11): The definitions in 33 CFR 181.3 do not include the 
manufacturing of handmade vessels and is inconsistent with SS181.23(b). 
It should include person engaged in the manufacture of a boat for his 
or her own use (operation) and not for sale.
    Answer: This collection of information is for all registered 
vessels. If a homemade vessel is registered, it should be included in 
the statistics.
    Comment (12): If a state has already transitioned--or will soon 
transition--its numbering system and the content of the certificates of 
number over to the requirements cited in 33 CFR 174.19 (i.e., before 
the Jan. 1, 2017 implementation deadline), what version of the form is 
it suppose to use? If, as a result of the ICR, the OMB formally 
approves the collection and issues an OMB Control Number to this 
revised form 3923 before the Jan. 1, 2017 deadline for states to 
implement the new requirements, will a state that does not make the 
transition until the deadline be able to submit its data on the ``old'' 
version of the form?
    Answer: States would be asked to submit information on the historic 
form. If a State has already transitioned to the new terms ahead of the 
January 1, 2017 deadline, the Coast Guard will accept registration data 
on either form.
    Comment (13): If there are variations in the version of the forms 
employed by the states and submitted to the Coast Guard, how will the 
Coast Guard reconcile those differences in the computation and report-
out of registration data?

[[Page 40606]]

    Answer: The Coast Guard will merge datasets if both the historic 
and proposed forms are used.
    In addition to the above comments submitted to the docket, the 
following comments and questions were received by Coast Guard program 
staff members:
    Comment (14): Is this just the periodic request to approve the 
continuation of the collection of registration data?
    Answer: Yes.
    Comment (15): Has the Notice been issued primarily (at this time) 
as part of the process to get OMB to issue a control number?
    Answer: Yes.
    Comment (16): Is this in preparation for collection of registration 
data under the ``new'' vessel terms authorized by the Final Rule on 
State Numbering System (SNS), Vessel Identification System (VIS), and 
Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) (eff. Jan 2017)?
    Answer: Yes. This form makes use of the ``primary operation'' and 
``vessel type'' in 33 Code of Federal Regulation 174.19.
    Comment (17): Is there a revised collection form that will 
accompany it?
    Answer: Yes. There is a revised collection form that is greatly 
simplified. The proposed revision provides instructions, a breakdown of 
recreational vessel types by motorization and length category, a 
breakdown of commercial vessel types, and an administration section.
    Comment (18): Will there be any other supporting documentation 
posted to regulations.gov for this Notice?
    Answer: Yes. The Coast Guard posted additional files to docket 
USCG-2014-0173, including the proposed registration form and supporting 
statement.
    Comment (19): A commenter questioned the Coast Guard's response to 
previously submitted comment (6) in which the Coast Guard noted a 
reduced reporting burden with the revised form. The commenter noted 
that the burden is not reduced since collecting aspects of vessels such 
as hull material and engine type are already required under 33 CFR 174 
even if statistics regarding these aspects are not required on form 
CGHQ-3923.
    Answer: The burden of filling out the revised form is reduced. On 
the previous version of CGHQ-3923, the Coast Guard required statistics 
on over 150 data points whereas the proposed version of the form 
requires only 69. The previous version requested information on five 
variables (vessel type, hull material, length, engine type, and use) 
whereas the proposed version requires only three variables (vessel 
type, length, primary operation). The Coast Guard expects a reduced 
burden as the proposed form will require fewer queries and fewer data 
point checks to complete it.
    Comment (20): A commenter questioned why aspects of vessels such as 
hull material and engine type are necessary in 33 CFR 174 since they 
are not required elements to be reported on form CGHQ-3923.
    Answer: Various aspects of vessels are required to be collected for 
law enforcement purposes. Even though various vessel aspects such as 
hull material and engine type are not on the proposed form CGHQ-3923, 
they are used in accident, theft, and fraud investigations. Using 
common terminology facilitates common understanding.
    Comment (21): A commenter noted that hull material and engine type 
are of interest to sectors and should be on form CGHQ-3923 since 
information on them cannot be obtained outside of CGHQ-3923.
    Answer: The Coast Guard works with various sectors including 
government, industry, non-profits, and researchers. If a party 
requested information other than what is available on CGHQ-3923, the 
Coast Guard would direct the user to a more appropriate contact.
    Comment (22): A commenter provided a recommended version of CGHQ-
3923 that is a modification of the previous CGHQ-3923. It includes 
additional hull material entries, an additional engine type, and 
changes the names of some categories.
    Answer: The Coast Guard thanks the commenter for the suggested form 
but maintains a desire to have a simplified form for use by the States. 
The Coast Guard has not used the hull material or engine information 
collected previously. Because we have not used the data, we removed it 
from the form so as to reduce the burden of data reporting on the 
States.

Information Collection Request

    Title: State Registration Data.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-NEW.
    Summary: This Notice provides information on the collection of 
registration data from the State reporting authorities.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 12302 and 33 CFR 174.123 authorizes the 
collection of this information.
    Forms: CG-3923, State Registration Data.
    Respondents: 56 State reporting authorities respond.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Hour Burden Estimate: This is a new information collection request. 
The estimated burden is 42 hours a year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 
35, as amended.

    Dated: July 22, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-15987 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P