Long Range Identification and Tracking of Ships, 23310-23320 [E8-9182]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 29, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23310-23320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9182]



[[Page 23309]]

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

Part II





Department of Homeland Security





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



Coast Guard



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



33 CFR Part 169



Long Range Identification and Tracking of Ships; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 29, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 23310]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 169

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


Long Range Identification and Tracking of Ships

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2005-22612 and are available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
contact Mr. William Cairns, Office of Navigation Systems, Coast Guard, 
telephone 202-372-1557, e-mail William.R.Cairns@uscg.mil. If you have 
questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Acronyms
II. Regulatory History
III. Background and Purpose
    A. LRIT History--International and Domestic
    B. Description of the LRIT System
    C. Discussion of Rule
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes From Proposed Rule
    A. Ship Requirements
    B. LRIT System
    C. Coast Guard Resources and Enforcement
    D. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Evaluation
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Acronyms

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

II. Regulatory History

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

III. Background and Purpose

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

A. LRIT History--International and Domestic

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

[[Page 23311]]

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

B. Description of the LRIT System

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

C. Discussion of Rule

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

[[Page 23312]]

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

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes From Proposed Rule

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

A. Ship Requirements

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

[[Page 23313]]

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

B. LRIT System

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

[[Page 23314]]

the absence of an IDC, all SOLAS Contracting Governments will need to 
associate their ships with a National, Regional, or Cooperative Data 
Center.
    One commenter suggested the Coast Guard address how it will handle 
the issue of flag States that do not have an operational data center 
and have decided not to make use of the U.S. system. The Coast Guard 
recognizes that the international LRIT system is dependent on each 
SOLAS Contracting Government establishing an LRIT data center and 
ensuring that position reports from its ships entitled to fly its Flag 
may be accessed by other Data Centers through the International LRIT 
Data Exchange. This rule, however, is directed at ships, not at other 
governments. As noted above, if the United States does not receive LRIT 
data from a ship covered by this rule that is headed to a U.S. port or 
place, then a COTP could exercise full regulatory authority over 
individual ships in order to protect the safety and security of his or 
her port.
    One commenter expressed concern about how the IDE and LRIT system 
would function after January 1, 2010. The agreement reached at MSC 83 
was for the U.S. to operate the IDE on a temporary interim basis until 
January 2010. In the interim, MSC must decide on an alternative 
arrangement, i.e., another Administration or commercial entity to 
build, host, operate, and maintain the IDE. If MSC is unable to decide 
on such an alternative, the U.S. will need to determine if it can 
continue its temporary operation of the IDE.
    One commenter requested that Sec.  169.210 specify transmission of 
reports shall continue until such time as the vessel departs the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) on an 
outbound international voyage. The Coast Guard disagrees. The SOLAS 
regulation is silent on the issue of a ship departing a port, and the 
commenter also noted the rule specifies when a vessel must begin 
transmitting but does not indicate when the transmissions may cease. 
However, the SOLAS regulation and performance standards and functional 
requirements incorporated by reference contemplate LRIT transmissions 
every six (6) hours and when polled. This requirement is not dependent 
on whether the ship is entering or departing port. Once a ship has left 
port, a Contracting Government is entitled to track the ship within 
1,000 nm of its coast, unless specifically denied by the ship's Flag 
Administration, or until that ship has entered the internal waters of 
another Contracting Government.
    The same commenter requested the Coast Guard add the definitions of 
EEZ and OCS to Sec.  169.5. The Coast Guard disagrees. Neither the term 
EEZ nor OCS is contained in that SOLAS regulation, nor do they have any 
bearing on that regulation or this rulemaking. This rule implements 
SOLAS V/19-1.8.1.3, which entitles a Contracting Government to receive 
position reports from foreign vessels operating within 1,000 nm of its 
coast, irrespective of its location relative to the EEZ or OCS. 
Therefore, we see no need to define those terms in this rule.
    One commenter stated that Sec.  169.210 should clarify the rule to 
include vessels that intend to work on the U.S. OCS but not enter the 
territorial sea, vessels that intend to lighter cargoes offshore, or 
other ``hovering vessels''. The Coast Guard disagrees that such 
clarification is necessary in the rule. The Coast Guard believes these 
ships are considered to be on an international voyage. As stated in 
Sec.  169.205 and reflected in the heading of Sec.  169.210, this final 
rule applies to ships engaged on an international voyage. If these OCS 
locations are within 1,000 nm of the U.S. baseline, then Sec.  
169.210(c) makes it clear that the Coast Guard is entitled to receive 
position reports based on the ship's location relative to U.S. coast 
(i.e., coastal State relationship). Further, Sec.  169.210(b) makes it 
clear that United States has a port State relationship to a ship that 
has submitted a NOA under 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, and therefore the 
Coast Guard has authority to require position reports. This rule does 
not change those NOA requirements in part 160 that are based on a ship 
going to a U.S. ``port or place of destination.'' Under either 
relationship, foreign flag ships engaged on an international voyage, 
such as those identified by the commenter, would be required to 
transmit position reports, as would a U.S. flag ship on an 
international voyage.
    One commenter requested that the regulation address the ``non-
mandatory'' requirement imposed by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 
District, which mandates installation of ``locating devices'' on all 
MODUs, both self propelled and non-self propelled, while operating in 
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and suggested LRIT replace that requirement. 
The Coast Guard disagrees. The LRIT system and these regulations, and 
the Eighth District voluntary system to which this comment refers, are 
designed to serve two distinct and different capabilities. Furthermore, 
these regulations pertain only to self-propelled MODUs and the Eight 
District voluntary program pertains to all MODUs. Therefore, the need 
for the Eighth District voluntary program will not be eliminated by the 
LRIT system or the LRIT information that results.
    The Eighth Coast Guard District voluntary requirement relates to 
ships and facilities subject to 33 CFR chapter I subchapter N (Outer 
Continental Shelf Activities). The reporting requirements facilitate 
the Coast Guard's ability to obtain limited access to MODU position 
information once a storm has passed through the MODU area of operation. 
The position reporting requirement provides an essential part of the 
Eighth District's ability to prepare for, and respond to, hurricanes 
and other natural disasters. The position reporting requirement is 
intended to maximize severe weather response preparation and Maritime 
Domain Awareness of our OCS in order to ensure a successful response 
effort. This initiative utilizes transponder equipment and is 
considered an industry ``best practice.'' The technology and equipment 
provides real time MODU location tracking capability. It is vital to 
the Coast Guard's and the drilling industry's shared success to limit 
environmental and property damage caused by MODU loss of station-
keeping ability (dragging anchors across and damaging undersea 
pipelines on the seabed as a result of the hurricane being a prime 
example).
    In addition, real time access to this position information is 
vitally important to mutual initial response efforts (e.g., having the 
last known position of a MODU if it sank). The Eighth District 
initiative allows access to such information from all types of MODU's 
and offshore facilities, whereas, the LRIT regulations are limited to 
self-propelled MODU's. Furthermore, Sec.  169.205(c) only requires 
position reports from MODU's that are actually underway on an 
international voyage. Because of the foregoing dissimilarities between 
the Eighth District voluntary program and the LRIT regulation, the 
Coast Guard does not agree that LRIT can be an effective substitute for 
the Eighth District voluntary program.
    One commenter stated that the LRIT exemption for vessels operating 
within 20 nm of land with properly operating AIS is somewhat confusing 
and suggested it may be clearer to state for vessels that may otherwise 
be required to operate an LRIT system, the operation of such a system 
is not required for vessels when operating within 20 nm of the baseline 
or within the internal waters of the U.S. The Coast Guard disagrees. 
The AIS exemption under Sec.  169.235(a) applies only to ships 
certified for operation within 20 nm of the coast, and is derived from 
the SOLAS regulation that exempts ships

[[Page 23315]]

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

C. Coast Guard Resources and Enforcement

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

D. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

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

V. Incorporation by Reference

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

VI. Regulatory Evaluation

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

A. Executive Order 12866

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

[[Page 23316]]

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

B. Small Entities

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

[[Page 23317]]

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

C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

D. Collection of Information

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

E. Federalism

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

[[Page 23318]]

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards

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

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

M. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 169

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


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

PART 169--SHIP REPORTING SYSTEMS

0
1. The authority citation is revised to read:

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

Sec.  169.1  [Amended]

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


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

    As used in this part--
    Administration means the Government of the State whose flag the 
ship is entitled to fly.
    Cargo ship means any ship which is not a passenger ship.
    Flag Administration means the Government of a State whose flag the 
ship is entitled to fly.
    Gross tonnage means tonnage as defined under the International 
Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969