[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21710-21715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10838]



[[Page 21710]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 160

[USCG-2001-8659]
RIN 2115-AG06


Notification of Arrival: Addition of Charterer to Required 
Information

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend advance notification 
requirements in the Notice of Arrival regulations for vessels bound for 
ports or places in the United States. In addition to the information 
already required by these regulations, the proposed changes would 
require the owner, master, operator, agent, or person in charge of the 
vessel to identify the charterer(s) of their vessel. With the proposed 
addition of the charterer information in the notice, we will be able to 
better identify the charterers associated with substandard vessels.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before July 2, 2001. Comments sent to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB 
on or before June 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure that your comments and related material are not 
entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of 
the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2001-8659), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    You must also mail comments on collection of information to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, 
U.S. Coast Guard.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket 
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call Project Manager CDR Mark Prescott, Coast Guard, telephone 
202-267-0225. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material 
to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of 
Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
positive and negative comments and related material. If you do so, 
please include your name and address, identify the docket number for 
this rulemaking (USCG-2001-8659), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each 
comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand 
delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at 
the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your positive or 
negative comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by 
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you 
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the 
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting to the Docket Management Facility at the address 
under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine 
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and 
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard initiated the Port State Control Program (PSC) in 
April of 1994, because of concerns raised over the steady increase in 
the number of substandard non-U.S. flagged vessels visiting U.S. 
waters. The goal of the Program was to eliminate substandard vessels 
from U.S. waters. To meet this goal the Coast Guard developed a risk-
based targeting matrix that evaluated a foreign vessel's Flag State, 
owner, operator, classification society, ship type, and its compliance 
history. The use of the matrix allowed limited Coast Guard resources to 
be directed to those vessels that posed the greatest risk to safety and 
the environment. The basis of the matrix is derived from information 
obtained as part of a vessel's notification of arrival required by 33 
CFR part 160, subpart C. The targeting matrix is a tool the Captain of 
the Port (COTP) uses to assign a score to each arriving foreign vessel, 
and then prioritize vessel boardings based on the total number of 
points assigned to each vessel. Those vessels, representing the highest 
risk, are then targeted for boarding. If a vessel is determined to be 
substandard, it is detained until the deficiencies are corrected. 
Although the number of detentions of substandard vessels fell from 547 
in 1997 to 193 in 2000, there are still too many of these vessels 
calling on U.S. ports.
    Current factors, obtained from the notice of arrival and used in 
the PSC matrix, include the vessel's class society, flag state, owner 
and operator. The Coast Guard believes that the proposed addition of 
charterer, as a factor to consider in the Port State targeting scheme, 
would further improve our ability to identify vessels most likely to 
pose the highest risks.
    A recent study sponsored by the Netherlands Ministry of Transport 
indicates that the expense of operating a substandard vessel is 14 
percent less than the operating cost of a compliant vessel. We know 
that many companies chartering vessels to move their cargo go to great 
lengths to ensure that the vessels they charter are sound and pose 
minimal risks. In other cases, individuals or corporations select a 
vessel based solely on the cost of chartering the vessel, foregoing any 
examination of the vessel's condition or safety and casualty history. 
We feel these two scenarios demonstrate the value of collecting the 
arriving vessel's charterer as one more factor in the PSC control 
matrix.
    For purposes of this rulemaking the Coast Guard considers the 
``charterer'' to be the person or organization who contracts for the 
vessel or the majority of the carrying capacity of a vessel for the 
transportation of cargo to a stated port for a specified period. With 
the proposed addition of the charterer information in the notice, we 
will be

[[Page 21711]]

able to better identify the charterers associated with substandard 
vessels. Vessels that are associated with targeted charterers will be 
assigned points, with the appropriate weighting, in the targeting 
matrix. This additional information will enable us to better prioritize 
inspections of vessels of greater risk.

Regulatory History

    We published in the Federal Register, on August 18, 2000, a notice 
of request for comments entitled Notification of Arrival; Addition of 
Charterer or Cargo Owner to Required Information (65 FR 50481). You 
should refer to this notice for a comprehensive discussion of 
background information relating to this rulemaking. You can find this 
notice electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov under docket number USCG-2000-7796.

Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received sixteen comment letters in response to the 
notice of request for comments published in the Federal Register on 
August 18, 2000. The notice outlined the Coast Guard's statutory 
authority for collecting specific information from vessels arriving at 
ports in the United States. It also asked thirteen questions relative 
to adding charterer and cargo owner information to that information 
already required to be reported in the notice of arrival under 33 CFR 
part 160, subpart C. Only five comment letters answered all of the 
questions asked within the notice. To concentrate on all of answers and 
comments addressing the specific questions asked in our notice, we have 
organized this discussion into sections. Each of the thirteen questions 
asked in the notice is designated as an independent section, and is 
identified within section headings. A general overview of the responses 
suggests that collection of charterer would be of value for the PSC 
matrix and entails minimal costs. The collection of cargo owner would 
be more difficult and less valuable, particularly in cases of 
containers or multiple cargo owners.

Question 1: What Role Do the Charterer and Cargo Owner Play in Ensuring 
Ships Are in Compliance With International Safety and Pollution 
Regulations? To What Extent Should They Be Held Accountable?

    The vast majority of respondents to this question felt that the 
vessel owner is ultimately responsible for the condition of the vessel. 
Their opinion on the role played by the charterer and cargo owner in 
ensuring the quality of the vessel was split. Seven of the twelve 
respondents felt that the charterer shared in the responsibility and 
pointed out that, particularly among bulk liquid transporters, there 
was significant effort made by the charterer to select vessels with the 
best record of compliance. None of the respondents felt the charterer 
or cargo owner should be held accountable for ship selection. It was 
generally felt that the role of the cargo owner was more difficult to 
determine and in some cases there would be multiple cargo owners. Many 
of these responses support the Coast Guard belief that the charterer 
does have an influence on the quality of vessels carrying their product 
and therefore support our proposal to add charterer to the information 
required on the notice of arrival.

Question 2: Would Publication of a List of Charterers and Cargo Owners 
That Are Associated With Detentions Improve Compliance With 
International Safety Standards?

    Eleven comments responded to this question. Seven of the comments 
indicate that publishing such a list would not improve compliance with 
international safety standards. Four respondents believe that 
publishing a list of charterers and cargo owners associated with 
detentions would or may have a measurable impact. One respondent states 
that enforcement of existing regulations would be more sensible than 
adding new regulations. The Coast Guard agrees that publication of the 
list of charterers associated with vessel detentions is not likely to 
significantly influence a charterer's practices. However, we believe 
this information will be useful in targeting vessels for PSC boarding 
and would distribute this information to our field units for that 
purpose.

Question 3: Should the Charterer and Cargo Owner Be Included in the 
Coast Guard's Port State Control targeting matrix? If So, Does the Type 
of Chartering Agreement Matter When a Decision Is Being Made To 
Determine Who Should Be Associated With a Detention?

    Eleven comments responded to this question. Six of the respondents 
believe including the charterer and cargo owner in the targeting matrix 
holds merit, whereas five respondents disagreed or had reservations. 
There was one comment suggesting that including the port facility along 
with the charterer would be of value and another suggesting that the 
insurer should be included. One respondent that supported adding 
charterer and cargo owner to the PSC matrix mentioned that trying to 
collect and evaluate this information may prove to be unwieldy, 
particularly with the potential for many cargo owners for a single 
vessel. The Coast Guard agrees with the comments supporting inclusion 
of the charterer and cargo owner information in our targeting matrix 
and also with the comment concerning the difficulty in managing the 
cargo owner data. The Coast Guard believes that requiring the vessel to 
provide the cargo owner information in the notice of arrival will be an 
overall greater burden on industry than providing the charterer, with 
perhaps less value. Because of this, and the fact that it would be much 
more difficult for us to collect and evaluate the cargo owner, we do 
not propose to add cargo owner information to the notice of arrival 
requirement. One comment indicated that only after the Coast Guard had 
sufficient time to collect and analyze data on the role of the 
charterer in vessel detentions, would it be relevant to use charterer 
in its PSC matrix. We agree with this comment, and we will need to have 
charterer data for some time in order to assess the weight to assign in 
our boarding matrix and to be able to differentiate those charterers 
most likely to be associated with vessel detentions.

Question 4: What Is the Screening Process Used by Your Company Prior to 
Chartering a Vessel? How Is the Final Vessel Selection Made?

Question 5: What Factors Are Considered When You Select a Vessel for 
Charter?

    Eight of the sixteen total responses to the docket addressed these 
questions. The same eight responders addressed question five and, 
because of the connection between the two questions, we will address 
them both here. All comments noted specific elements used in screening 
a vessel prior to chartering. The extent to which these elements are 
considered appears to vary from one company to another. Some companies 
rely on information from trade associations or data collection 
organizations, some have extensive in-house vetting processes or 
contract for such services. There appears to be variations between 
types of vessels being chartered, bulk liquid vs. dry bulk vs. 
container ships. Those elements considered included availability, cost, 
compliance with regulations, cargo carrying capacity, vessel 
suitability for the cargo, vessel stability, terms of contract, 
ownership, history of the vessel and the owner's fleet, inspection

[[Page 21712]]

history, age, Flag State, class society and past knowledge or use of 
the vessel. The comments reinforce our belief that individuals and 
corporations vary considerably in the methodology and tools used in 
making a decision on which vessel to charter. They also vary greatly in 
philosophy regarding whether to rely on the owner to supply a properly 
certificated vessel, or whether they need to expend greater resources 
to ensure that the vessel meets all applicable international marine 
safety and environmental protection standards. We feel that where the 
emphasis is placed to a greater extent on cost in selecting a vessel 
for charter, there will be a higher likelihood that the vessel will be 
substandard. For this reason, we believe that targeting vessels that 
are chartered by companies frequently associated with substandard 
vessels for PSC examinations, will improve our ability to keep 
substandard ships out of U.S. waters. Therefore, we propose to collect 
charterer information from all vessels, and use this information to 
improve our foreign vessel targeting matrix.

Question 6: Do You Consider a Vessel's Safety or Casualty Record, 
Including Its Port State Control History in Your Decision Process?

    Seven of the eight comments submitted to the docket in response to 
this question indicated that they use the vessel's safety or casualty 
record in the chartering decision process. The degree of importance 
placed on safety and casualty records varies but several felt it was 
very important. One respondent who felt it was important stressed the 
use of the Coast Guard's PSIX database and encouraged the frequent 
updating of that Port State Control Database. These responses further 
validate the charterer's role in the quality of vessels being 
chartered. The Coast Guard believes that the extent to which charterers 
are selective in their chartering decisions will be another factor that 
can be used in PSC boarding decisions.

Question 7: Does a Charterer or Cargo Owner Change During a Voyage? If 
Yes, What Are the Circumstances and in General How Often Does This 
Occur?

    The responses to this question generally indicate that it is rare 
for either charterer or cargo owner to change during a voyage. It was 
more likely however, that the cargo owner would change and possibly 
more than once during a voyage. For reasons stated earlier, the Coast 
Guard is not proposing to collect information on the cargo owner, so 
such change would not affect the purpose of this regulatory change to 
the notice of arrival requirements. Regarding a change of charterer, we 
feel this is a much less frequent occurrence, and that providing the 
current charterer would not be a burden to the Master or vessel prior 
to arrival.

Question 8: In Those Instances Where the Charterer Changes During the 
Voyage or There Are Multiple Cargo Owners or Cargo Ownership Changes 
How Is Responsibility for Ensuring Compliance With International 
Maritime Safety and Pollution Prevention Standards Determined?

    Five responses provided a specific answer to who is responsible for 
compliance with international safety and pollution standards under the 
circumstances mentioned in the question. Three of the responses 
emphasized that the vessel owner was responsible regardless of such 
changes. Two comments indicate that some vetting could still take place 
prior to a cargo owner or charterer change, and that they played some 
role. We appreciate the information provided within the responses to 
this question. At this point the relevancy of the question is marginal, 
because we are not proposing to collect cargo owner information, and a 
change to the charterer during a voyage is apparently a rare event.

Question 9: What Documentation Does the Vessel Owner, Agent, Master, 
Person-in-Charge or Operator Have That Identifies the Charterer or 
Cargo Owner? Is This Documentation Available Onboard the Vessel?

    There was a mixed response as to the availability of the cargo 
owner and or charterer information being available onboard the vessel. 
The Coast Guard believes that today's technology easily enables a 
vessel or vessel agent to communicate with its home office or vessel 
owner, allowing charterer information to be readily available for 
notice of arrival reporting. As mentioned earlier, identifying the 
cargo owner, particularly in situations with multiple cargo owners, is 
a more onerous task, and the Coast Guard is not proposing to add this 
information to the required notice of arrival.

Question 10: How Is the Cost of a Delay Resulting From a Port State 
Control Action or Detention Measured or Determined? Who Absorbs or Pays 
for It?

    We received 12 comments to question ten. According to eight 
commenters the cargo owner measures the cost of delay and the vessel 
owner pays for the actual delay. Three other respondents believe the 
cargo owner absorbs the cost of delay. One commenter did not directly 
respond to this question. We appreciate the information provided within 
the responses to this question. However, the cost of delay is not 
included in the regulatory cost estimates. Generally, the Coast Guard 
does not evaluate these types of expenses, because the industry can 
avoid them by complying with the applicable regulations.

Question 11: Would Requiring That the Name of the Charterer and Cargo 
Owner Be Provided as Part of the Notice of Arrival Have an Impact on 
Small Businesses?

    We received 11 comments to this question. Four commenters argue 
that requiring them to include the name of the charterer and cargo 
owner in the notice of arrival information would create a high 
additional cost. Once again the concerns lie with providing the name or 
names of cargo owners, which the Coast Guard does not propose to 
collect.

Question 12: What Would the Cost Be to Your Company of Adding the Name 
of Charterer and Cargo Owner to the Information Reported in the Notice 
of Arrival? Does this Cost Differ According to the Type of Charter, 
Cargo Owner or Vessel Type? What Is the Basis for Your Estimate?

    We received ten comments addressing this question. Six comments 
indicate that there would be a minimal cost burden placed on their 
company by identifying the charterer in the notice of arrival. However, 
two respondents, representing container and break-bulk shipping 
operations, estimate that their company would be burdened with a 
significant cost increase by adding this information to the notice of 
arrival. The four remaining respondents did not directly answer this 
question. We appreciate the information provided, and believe that the 
associated cost for providing charterer information to be minimal. 
Therefore, we propose to include charterer information in the notice of 
arrival.

Question 13: What Is Your Estimate of the Total Cost to Industry of 
Adding the Name of the Charterer and Cargo Owner to the Information 
Reported in the Notice of Arrival? What Is the Total Cost by Charterer, 
Cargo Owner or Vessel Type? What Is the Basis for Your Estimate?

    Eleven comments concerning this question were submitted to the 
docket. Nine of those commenters were unable to provide an answer 
because they lack

[[Page 21713]]

the information necessary to give a proper response. Another commenter 
went beyond the scope of this question. One commenter estimates the 
burden of cost to the industry would be worth considering. We 
appreciate the information provided within the responses to this 
question. We reviewed the comments and incorporated the information 
into our regulatory analysis.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rulemaking would revise 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. The 
statutory authority for this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1231. 
Specifically, this rulemaking would amend 33 CFR 160.203 by adding the 
definition of charterer and 33 CFR 160.201, 160.207, and 160.211 by 
including the name of the charterer as part of the information required 
by vessels bound for ports or places in the United States.
    Adding the definition of charterer is necessary to differentiate 
between long term chartering agreements (bare boat or demise charters), 
where the charterer is essentially the operator of the vessel, and an 
individual that ``leases'' a vessel to move goods or materials for 
short periods of time or a single voyage.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not 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. It is not significant 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Transportation (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
    A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) is available in 
the docket as indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the Evaluation 
follows:
    Under the Port State Control (PSC) program the Coast Guard 
developed a risk-based matrix to better identify substandard foreign 
vessels calling in U.S. ports. The matrix evaluates a foreign vessel's 
Flag State, owner, operator, classification society, ship type, and 
compliance history and assigns scores to each vessel. Based on these 
scores, the Coast Guard boards and examines vessels that are likely to 
pose risks to safety or the environment. Vessels found to have 
deficiencies are detained until the deficiencies have been corrected.
    While the number of substandard vessel detentions has fallen since 
the implementation of PSC, too many substandard vessels are calling on 
U.S. ports. A recent study by the Netherlands Ministry of Transport 
indicates that the expense of operating a substandard vessel is 
approximately 14 percent lower than the expense of operating a 
compliant vessel. When individuals or corporations select vessels to 
carry their products, the cost to charter vessels is a prime 
consideration in some cases. Thus, many vessels selected for transport 
based on cost alone are likely to be substandard. By requiring vessels 
to report their charterers in the notifications of arrival, the Coast 
Guard will be able to better identify potentially substandard vessels.
    The proposed addition of charterer as a factor that is considered 
when determining vessel risk in our Port State Control targeting scheme 
would improve our ability to determine which vessels are likely to be 
substandard. Charterers who are continually associated with substandard 
vessels would be assigned points, with the appropriate weighting, in 
the targeting matrix. Currently, we can not calculate the number or 
percentage of detentions that would cause a charterer to be targeted, 
because we do not have the essential charterer data. With the proposed 
addition of the charterer information in the notice of arrival, we will 
be able to better identify the charterers associated with substandard 
vessels and better identify the high risk vessels requiring inspection.
    Population: There are approximately 10,000 vessels submitting 
67,300 notice of arrivals annually that would be subject to this rule.
    Cost and benefit: We determined that vessel owners and operators 
will incur the costs of this rule. The Coast Guard will not incur 
additional costs as a result of the increase in information collected. 
The increased costs will be the result of additional time spent 
completing the charterer information in the Notice of Arrival 
paperwork. This additional effort is relatively minimal.
    The potential benefits of the proposed rule are not quantifiable 
but include the following: (1) U.S. waters will experience increased 
safety; (2) U.S. waters will experience a decrease in damage to 
property and the environment; (3) Coast Guard will target substandard 
vessels traveling U.S. waters that pose safety and environmental risks; 
(4) Coast Guard will spend less effort on compliant vessels; (5) Coast 
Guard will spend more effort examining previously unboarded vessels; 
(6) Coast Guard will have more information on foreign vessels traveling 
U.S. waters; (7) Coast Guard and vessel owners will have better 
understanding of the risks posed by foreign vessels; and (8) degrees of 
liability will be clarified.
    Alternatives: The only alternative to the proposed rule we consider 
is to take no action. The Coast Guard would continue to collect the 
information currently required under 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, 
boarding vessels based on the current PSC targeting matrix. The Coast 
Guard believes that factoring the charterer into the targeting matrix 
is an important element in risk analysis for the PSC program. 
Currently, too many substandard vessels that pose risks to public 
safety and the environment enter U.S. ports. The additional information 
collected under the proposed rule would help the Coast Guard identify 
owners of substandard vessels and would address vessel deficiencies 
more efficiently. The ``no action'' alternative is not further 
explored.
    The annual costs for the proposed rule are summarized as follows:

                                       Table 1: Total Annual Costs Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Clerical
                                                             labor     Clerical   Cost per   Cost per    Total
              Estimated number of port calls                minutes     labor     clerical   clerical    annual
                                                            per port   minutes     labor      labor       cost
                                                              call     per year     hour     minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67,300...................................................          1     67,300     $31.00      $0.52    $35,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
considered whether this proposed 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

[[Page 21714]]

governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    We estimate that this rule will not affect a significant number of 
small businesses because the proposed rule imposes minimal impacts. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, 
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it 
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically 
affect it.

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 proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please consult CDR Mark Prescott, Project 
Manager, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (G-MSO), 
telephone 202-267-0225. 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).

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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, 
record keeping, 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.
    Title: Notification of Arrival: Addition of Charterer to Required 
Information
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This rulemaking will 
amend 33 CFR 160.201, 160.207, and 160.211 to include the name of the 
charterer as part of the information required by vessels bound for 
ports or places in the United States. This collection of information 
will add minimal burden to the information collection described in OMB 
2115-0557, Advanced Notice of Vessel Arrival and Departure.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard will use the 
information collected to identify those foreign vessels that pose the 
highest risks to U.S. waterways and ports and target these vessels for 
inspection.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are vessel crews 
traveling U.S. waterways and hailing U.S. ports that must issue an 
Advanced Notice of Arrival.
    Number of Respondents: The estimated number of vessels with crews 
that will provide the information is 10,000 annually.
    Frequency of Response: Crews on approximately 10,000 vessels will 
issue an Advanced Notice of Arrival 6 to 7 times annually.
    Burden of Response: It is estimated that adding the name of the 
charterer on the Notice of Arrival will require 1 minute of clerical 
labor per response.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: It is estimated that vessels will 
make 67,300 port calls annually. Each of these port calls will require 
1 minute of clerical labor to complete the charterer information on the 
Notice of Arrival. The estimated annual burden is 67,300 minutes, or 
1,122 hours.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of 
information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information 
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help 
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available 
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; 
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve 
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can 
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit 
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated 
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the 
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we 
will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to 
approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

Federalism

    We analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 
Because this rule amends the existing federal Advance Notice of Arrival 
rules, if those existing rules are preemptive, then perforce this rule, 
which would amend the existing rule to add ``charterer'' to the list of 
required information to be supplied in an Advance Notice of Arrival, 
will also be preemptive. The Coast Guard believes that its existing 
Advance Notice of Arrival regulation in 33 CFR 160.213, which are 
issued under Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, is 
preemptive of any state rule, which would also require the vessel to 
provide the state (or one of its political subdivisions) advance notice 
of arrival. See, U.S. v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.CT 1135 (2000). 
However, the Coast Guard has, in numerous instances, through Memoranda 
of Agreement with an interested State, cooperated with the States and 
agreed to provide the information contained in the Advance Notice of 
Arrival to the states. It will continue to do so.

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 regulatory 
actions not specifically required by law. 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 proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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.

[[Page 21715]]

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 
concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. A 
rule with tribal implications has a substantial direct effect on one or 
more Indian tribe, 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.

Environment

    We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. The proposed rule is a 
procedural regulation that does not have any environmental impact 
because the action does not have a significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is 
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 160

    Administrative practice and procedure; Harbors; Hazardous materials 
transportation; Marine safety; Navigation (water); Reporting and record 
keeping requirements; Vessels;
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 160, subpart C as follows:

PART 160--PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY--GENERAL

Subpart C--Notifications of Arrivals, Departures, Hazardous 
Conditions, and Certain Dangerous Cargoes

    1. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. In Sec. 160.201 redesignate paragraphs (c)(3)(vii), (viii), 
(ix), and (x) as paragraphs (c)(3)(viii), (ix), (x), and (xi) 
respectively, and add paragraph (c)(3)(vii) to read as follows:


Sec. 160.201  Applicability and exceptions to applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vii) Name of the charterer of the vessel;
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 160.203 add in alphabetical order the definition for 
``Charterer'' to read as follows:


Sec. 160.203  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Charterer means the person or organization that contracts for the 
majority of the carrying capacity of a ship for the transportation of 
cargo to a stated port for a specified period.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 160.207 redesignate paragraphs (c)(7), (8), (9), (10), 
and (11) as paragraphs (c)(8), (9), (10), (11), and (12) respectively, 
and add paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:


Sec. 160.207  Notice of arrival: Vessels bound for ports or places in 
the United States.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) Name of the charterer of the vessel;
* * * * *
    5. Amend Sec. 160.211 as follows:
    a. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), 
(14), (15), and (16) as paragraphs (a)(8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), 
(14), (15), (16), and (17) respectively; and add paragraph (a)(7);
    b. In paragraph (b) remove ``(a)(8) through (16)'' and all ``(a)(9) 
through (17)''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec. 160.211  Notice of arrival: Vessels carrying certain dangerous 
cargo.

    (a) * * *
    (7) Name of the charterer of the vessel;
* * * * *
    6. Amend Sec. 160.213 to read as follows:
    a. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), 
(14), and (15) as paragraphs (a)(8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), 
(15), and (16) respectively, and add paragraph (a)(7);
    b. In paragraph (b) remove ``(a)(8) through (15)'' and ``(a)(9) 
through (16)''.
    The addition read add as follows:


Sec. 160.213  Notice of departure: Vessels carrying certain dangerous 
cargo.

    (a) * * *
    (7) Name of the charterer of the vessel;
* * * * *

    Dated: March 23, 2001.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety 
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 01-10838 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U