[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21671-21675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10839]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 173

[USCG-1999-6094]
RIN 2115-AF87


Raising the Threshold of Property Damage for Reports of Accidents 
Involving Recreational Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard raises the threshold of property damage for 
reports of accidents involving recreational vessels when damage to 
vessels and other property totals $2,000 or more in any one accident 
or--this represents a change from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--
when a collision occurs involving two or more vessels, regardless of 
the amount of damage to property. The higher threshold better accounts 
for the rising cost of repairs to recreational vessels. This Final Rule 
will reduce the number of reports of accidents for minor or cosmetic 
damage, help us maintain statistics for future years comparable to 
those for past ones, and reduce the burden of paperwork on the public 
to report such incidents.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-1999-6094 and are available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility, U. S. Department of 
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, 
between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
contact Bruce Schmidt, Project Manager, Office of Boating Safety, 
Program Management Division, Coast Guard, by e-mail at 
[email protected] or by telephone at 202-267-0955.
    If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Dorothy Beard, 
Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
    You may obtain a copy of this rule by calling the U. S. Coast Guard 
Infoline at 1-800-368-5647 or by accessing either the Web Site for the 
Office of Boating Safety, at http://www.uscgboating.org, or the 
Internet Site for the Docket Management Facility, at http://dms.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    On June 20, 2000, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Raising the Threshold of Property Damage for Reports of 
Accidents Involving Recreational Vessels (65 FR 38229). We received 17 
letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was 
requested and none was held.

Regulatory Authority and History

    46 U.S.C. 6101 requires the Secretary (who has delegated the 
authority to the Commandant) to prescribe rules on the reporting of 
``marine casualties.'' We use that authority to describe different 
types of marine casualties, including those involving certain amounts 
of property damage, that various parties must report. 33 CFR Part 173, 
Subpart C, contains the rules applicable to recreational vessels.
    In 1972, the threshold of property damage for reports of accidents 
involving recreational vessels was $100. (This was the original 
threshold.) In 1979, the effects of inflation on the original threshold 
dictated that we raise the threshold to $200. The purpose of this 
adjustment was to reduce the number of reports filed for minor 
incidents.
    Even the threshold of $200, however, eventually resulted in the 
submission of an excessive number of reports of accidents on minor 
incidents. This trend increased the reporting burden on the boating 
public, and the administrative burden on both the States and the Coast 
Guard. On February 6, 1989, to reduce these burdens, we published a 
Final Rule (54 FR 5608) raising the threshold to $500. As it had been 
in 1979, the effect of inflation on repair costs was the basis for this 
change.
    The formula described in the preamble of the Final Rule of 1989 
rested on a methodology allowing us to adjust the threshold annually by 
applying a deflator based on the Gross National Product (GNP) to 
account for inflation. In that preamble, we also stated our intent to 
review the threshold annually and, if necessary, adjust the threshold 
in law each time it rose by another $100.

How We Developed the New Methodology for Adjusting the Threshold

    After analyzing the formula described in the preamble of the Final 
Rule of 1989, we determined that further adjustments both in the 
threshold and in the methodology used to determine it were necessary. 
Non-safety-related accident reports continued even after the threshold 
rose to $500 in 1989. We now believe both that the threshold was too 
low and that the methodology itself was amiss. An inflation index based 
on the GNP and applied to a base-year value of $500 yields a threshold 
for 2001 still low enough for the reporting of too many damages that 
are merely cosmetic. We decided that it is necessary to adjust the 
base-year value of the threshold to reach the level only where damage 
due to accidents implicates safety.
    The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators 
(NASBLA) is a professional association consisting of officials of 
States, commonwealths, and provinces responsible for administering or 
enforcing the boating laws of those bodies. Within NASBLA,

[[Page 21672]]

the Committee on Boating Accident Investigation, Reporting, and 
Analysis (BAIRAC) has responsibility for reporting and analyzing 
accidents.
    The Boating Law Administrators (BLAs) who serve on BAIRAC are 
experts in enforcement, in education for boating safety, and in 
investigation of boating accidents. From their ongoing relationships 
with facilities that repair recreational boats, as well as from their 
experience with and knowledge of various types of damage to boats and 
costs to repair it, they have strongly conveyed the need for the Coast 
Guard to raise the threshold of property damage for reports of 
accidents involving recreational vessels to a level that accurately 
reflects current prices of boats and costs of repair.
    BAIRAC called on the Coast Guard to initiate rulemaking to raise 
the threshold for reports of accidents involving only property damage 
from $500 to $2,000 and to amend the reportable conditions to include 
all accidents involving collisions of two or more vessels. The BLAs and 
the Coast Guard agreed that a threshold of $2,000 for those accidents 
involving only property damage would enable States' accident 
investigators to focus on reports of safety-related damage and would 
eliminate most of the reports of cosmetic damage. However, as we stated 
in the NPRM we published in 2000, we did not then see the benefit of 
requiring reports of all accidents involving collisions of two or more 
vessels, regardless of the amount of damage to property.
    In that NPRM, we attempted to define a level of cosmetic damage 
using data contained in the Boating Accident Report Database (BARD). 
Data for 1998 show that 1,718 reported collisions of two or more 
vessels involved only property damage. Of those 1,718, 1,002 involved 
property damage below the proposed threshold of $2,000. Taking a closer 
look at the data, we discovered that nearly 90% of those 1,002 involved 
property damage at or below a threshold of $1,500. At that time, we 
considered most of these more cosmetic than safety-related, 
notwithstanding that they involved collisions. So, recognizing the need 
to reduce the number of reports for minor or cosmetic damage, the need 
to reduce the administrative burden on the public and the States of 
reports for such damage, and the need for States' accident 
investigators to focus on safety-related damage, we did not plan to 
mandate reports of all accidents involving collisions of two or more 
vessels. However, as will become clear in our discussion of comments, 
our position has changed. We now fully concur with BAIRAC that we 
should require reports of such accidents, regardless of the amount of 
damage to property.
    The threshold of property damage for reports of accidents involving 
recreational vessels when damage to vessels and other property totals 
$2,000 or more in any one accident or of accidents involving collisions 
of two or more vessels, regardless of the amount of damage to property, 
is the minimum set by Federal rule; but States are free to impose 
stricter requirements. Thus, a State could require reports of all 
accidents, even if each report results only in property damage below 
the threshold of $2,000.
    We have also determined that it is necessary to find an inflation-
index that tracks the trends in the boat-repair industry more 
accurately than does the GNP. The GNP gives the total market value of 
all final goods and services produced in the U.S. for a given year. It 
comprises spending by all sectors of the economy. Therefore, the GNP 
deflator measures all changes in prices affecting consumers, private 
industry, and government.
    The Producer Price Index (PPI) is an alternative inflation-index. 
It gives the average change over time of prices received by sellers of 
domestic goods and services. The data constituting the PPI are 
organized by industry and product, making it possible to find specific 
data about prices of repairs to non-military boats. These data track 
the specific changes in prices of repairs to recreational boats. As 
this rulemaking concerns these very prices, we believe the PPI to be 
more suitable for measuring the changes in those prices with an 
appropriate threshold of property damage for reports of accidents 
involving those vessels.
    How we calculate the new threshold. For 2001 and beyond, we will 
use the PPI for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 3732, ``Boat 
Building and Repairing: Boat repairing, non-military boats'', to reckon 
the threshold. The new value for 2001, of $2,000, will serve as the 
base value. To reckon the value of the threshold for 2002 using 2001 as 
the base year, one should run the following calculation:
    (Base threshold for 2001)  x  ([PPI for 2002] / [PPI for 2001])
    For example, if the preliminary estimate of the PPI by the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics for 2002 were 191.0, and for 2001 it were 189.0, 
the calculation would run as follows:
    $2,000  x  (191.0 / 189.0) = $2,021.16
    Since this increase, rounded to the nearest $100, is less than 
$500, the threshold would remain at $2000. (An increment of $500 is 
small enough to serve the interest of safety and yet not so small as to 
entail too-frequent changes in the threshold.) We will calculate the 
increase every year; once it, rounded to the nearest $100, reaches 
$500, we will raise the threshold accordingly.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received a total of 17 comments on the proposed amendments to 
the rules. Eleven comments came from BLAs, and a twelfth from NASBLA. 
Two came from boating organizations, two from members of the general 
public, and one from an associate professor of education and safety 
research. Of the 17, one, from the State of California, arrived after 
the closing date of October 18, 2000; we accepted it because of the 
high volume of accident reports generated by the State each year, about 
10 percent of all reported accidents occurring there, and because we 
could accept it without prejudice to other participants in the 
rulemaking.
    Twelve comments, including seven submitted by BLAs and the one 
submitted by NASBLA, supported raising the threshold of property damage 
to $2,000 or more. Five of those twelve comments also supported 
requiring the reporting of all accidents involving collisions of two or 
more vessels, regardless of the amount of property damage.
    The remaining five comments, including the remaining four submitted 
by BLAs, opposed raising the threshold of property damage at all.
    Here follows a summary of each adverse comment:
    The first stated that published accident figures are already too 
low by a factor of 16, and that raising the threshold would only worsen 
the situation. It further stated that the whole system of reporting 
accidents needs to be strengthened, not weakened.
    The second, from the State of Alabama, suggested that we eliminate 
the threshold altogether. It argued that the amount of property damage 
has no relevance for analyzing accidents with the object of preventing 
them. It also presented criteria for reporting them that the State has 
been using for around 15 years.
    The third, from the State of Connecticut, maintained that the cost 
of property damage alone does not furnish a fair proxy for safety and 
that adopting the revised threshold could eliminate the reporting of 
many important accidents involving smaller boats. Next, it concurs with 
NASBLA that any reporting should reach all collisions involving any 
numbers of vessels. Last,

[[Page 21673]]

it states that eliminating or not mandating the reporting of all such 
collisions would likely reduce the value of BARD in illustrating the 
variety of boating accidents witnessed and investigated in Connecticut.
    The fourth, submitted by the State of Ohio, presented a variety of 
arguments against raising the threshold. (1) We were failing to 
differentiate what we called ``minor or cosmetic damage'' from what we 
considered damage worthy of reporting. (2) An instant increase in the 
threshold from $500 to $2,000 would eliminate statistical comparability 
for most accidents. (3) Although the Coast Guard wishes to reduce the 
burden of paperwork on the public, (a) Congress, which enacted the 
reporting system, must have held that the information warranted the 
burden; (b) the threshold of $2,000 is totally arbitrary and 
subjective, with no basis in relevant experience; (c) the Coast Guard 
appears to have used a criterion other than inflation as the factor for 
determining the increase from $200 in 1979 to $500 in 1989; and (d) the 
Coast Guard has not defined a ``non-safety-related accident,'' it has 
not offered any authority for addressing itself solely to ``safety-
related accidents,'' and it has not stated why one level of ``material 
loss'' is a proper concern of its while another is not. (4) If the 
Coast Guard accepts the demand of BAIRAC for proposing this change, it 
should also follow the full recommendation of BAIRAC-specifically, the 
call to cover all accidents involving collisions of two or more 
vessels, regardless of dollar amount of damage. (5) To set the 
threshold at a ``proper'' amount now, the Coast Guard should either fix 
it at $500 (where it arrived in 1989) but raise it with the PPI from 
now on or drop it back to the original $100 and raise it appropriately 
with the PPI. And, last, (6) the system for reporting accidents arose 
in the first place to benefit the boating community, and, if 
administered correctly, would be not a burden but rather a benefit.
    The fifth, submitted by the State of California, stated that we had 
not demonstrated that all accidents in which property damage falls 
below $2,000 or even $500 are any less important, in establishing 
causation, than those where it falls above $2,000. California believes 
that even accidents where damage is nominal may serve in identifying 
problems and may benefit safety analysts as they conceive safety 
programs for needs emerging in their State. Further, California 
recommends the reporting of all accidents caused by factors under the 
control of operators as well as accidents involving defects in 
equipment, unmarked hazards, and other matters bearing on safety. When 
analyzing any accident, California considers two questions: whether, if 
this operator had acted in a more prudent manner, this accident could 
have been avoided and whether this accident could have been avoided but 
for the defects in equipment, unmarked hazards, and other matters. If 
the answer is yes to either question, California considers that 
accident very seriously when structuring safety programs.
    Included in one comment was a recommendation to clarify that 
reports would be required when the damage in an accident stood not just 
above but at $2,000. Thus, it would have the Final Rule read not 
``Damage to vessels and other property totals more than $2,000 an 
accident * * *'' but ``Damage to vessels and other property totals 
$2,000 or more an accident * * *''
    After thoughtfully considering all of the above comments, the Coast 
Guard has decided to raise the threshold of property damage for reports 
of accidents involving recreational vessels to a level where such 
damage totals $2,000 or more an accident and to require reports of 
accidents for collisions involving two or more vessels, regardless of 
amount of property damage. The higher threshold will go into effect for 
the remainder of calendar year 2001 after the EFFECTIVE DATE.
    Our decision to amend the proposed rule so as to require reports of 
accidents for collisions involving two or more vessels, regardless of 
amount of property damage, rests on information furnished by the five 
comments that supported requiring reports of such accidents as well as 
raising the threshold to a level of $2,000 or more an accident. Even 
two of the five adverse comments agreed with BAIRAC, on requiring 
reports of such accidents. The primary justification for reporting all 
such accidents is that they owe to violation of the Navigation Rules 
(that is, No Proper Lookout, Excessive Speed, Reckless Operation, or 
the like). We concur, and add that these accidents are necessarily 
``safety-related.''
    Over time, collisions involving two or more vessels are the most-
reported kind of accident; every year, they represent about a third of 
all reported accidents. For 1999, BARD shows 2,774 such accidents. Of 
those, 1,707 (nearly two-thirds) resulted in property damage only: no 
fatalities and no injuries. The average damage for each of those 1,707 
was around $2,900; but the damage for 1,023 (60%) of them came to less 
than $2,000, and the average damage for those 1,023 was around $1,000. 
We acknowledge that excluding those 1,023 (about 12 percent of all 
reported accidents) because of low damage alone would compromise the 
quality and scope of data captured by BARD. Next, the absence of 1,023 
accidents most or all of which were due to violations of Navigation 
Rules would diminish the usefulness of the data in structuring safety 
programs. Last, we do not want to forgo valuable data on factors 
controllable by operators of less-expensive boats just because their 
boats incur less-expensive repairs. We agree that the reporting of all 
collisions involving two or more vessels is important both for 
understanding safety-related incidents at any moment and for tracking 
statistics over time. Thus, the benefits for the public of our 
collecting these data outweigh the burden on the public of supplying 
them.
    In conclusion, our intent is to raise the threshold for reporting 
property damage to a level where we capture almost all useful data and 
almost no useless ones. Damage worthy of reporting comprises that whose 
cause implicates the safe operation and navigation of the vessel and 
whose effect implicates the ``structural integrity'' or 
``seaworthiness'' of the vessel. Damage worthy of reporting is by 
definition worth the paperwork entailed by reporting. And more-
selective reporting can only yield more-useful statistics. Again, 
States remain free to capture all the data they want.
    In our previous Final Rule (54 FR 5608 (February 6, 1989)), we 
proposed to raise the threshold in increments of $100 over time to 
ensure the adjustment of the threshold to an appropriate level. We have 
not, nevertheless, raised it since then. Moreover, we doubt whether 
even the threshold of $500, set then, was high enough and we suspect 
that the methodology used to calculate it was amiss. (For instance, 
applying that methodology to the latter threshold would yield a 
threshold of barely $700 today. Our research suggests, and most of the 
comments confirm, that such a threshold would fail to capture many 
useful data.)
    We will review the new threshold every year. When it should 
increase by $500, we will raise it to an appropriate level by 
appropriate means: Notice-and-comment rulemaking with the participation 
of all willing parties.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This Final Rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 (OMB) has not reviewed 
this

[[Page 21674]]

Rule under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory 
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 
FR 11040 (February 26, 1979)). We expect the economic impact of this 
Rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 
10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Cost of Rule

    This Final Rule would impose no added monetary costs on the 
operator or owner of a recreational vessel or on anyone else. On the 
contrary, it would decrease costs that the current rule imposes.

Benefits of Rule

    Raising the threshold of property damage for reports of accidents 
involving recreational vessels to $2,000 or more an accident and 
requiring the reporting of accidents involving collisions of two or 
more vessels, regardless of amount of damage, for most of the remainder 
of 2001 would benefit owners and operators of recreational vessels, and 
officials of States and the Coast Guard, by reducing the current burden 
of submitting and administering accident reports. In 1999, there were 
1,189 reported accidents that involved only property damage--no 
fatalities and no injuries--and also did not involve any collisions of 
two or more vessels. Requiring a threshold of $2,000 or more in 
property damage for reporting an accident would have kept the following 
1,189 accidents from being published in our statistics on accidents for 
1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of
                                          accidents       Damage amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capsizing...........................               112            85,879
Collision with Fixed Object.........               302           239,242
Collision with Floating.............                54            44,702
Falls in Boat.......................                10             5,702
Falls Overboard.....................                14            11,661
Fire or Explosion of Fuel...........                36            29,010
Fire or Explosion (Other)...........                46            34,482
Flooding or Swamping................               213           161,227
Grounding...........................               186           130,864
Other...............................                39            27,018
Sinking.............................                81            59,985
Skiers' Mishaps.....................                 7             5,251
Struck by Boat......................                19            13,657
Struck by Motor or Propeller........                 3             1,250
Struck Submerged Object.............                54            45,809
Unknown Type........................                13            10,759
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................             1,189           906,498
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these 1,189 accidents, the average amount of damage is about 
$762.00. If this level of property damage were enough to declare the 
particular vessel or vessels total losses, the accidents would meet 
Federal reporting-requirements. If not, this level of damage would 
count as more ``cosmetic'' than ``safety-related'' and therefore would 
not meet those requirements.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
considered whether this Final Rule will 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.
    This Rule applies exclusively to private citizens who own or 
operate recreational vessels and by definition are not ``small 
entities''. Further, this Rule will reduce the reporting burden on 
those private citizens for reporting accidents involving recreational 
vessels.
    Because it expects the effects of this Rule to be minimal, the 
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this Rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Furthermore, as private citizens own the vast majority of 
recreational vessels and are not small entities, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act does not apply to most of the public that this Rule 
would regulate.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding this Final Rule so that they could better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. We 
provided the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of a contact 
for any small entities that felt either that the Rule would affect 
their small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions or 
that had questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
rules 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 Final Rule calls for no new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In fact, it 
should result in an actual reduction of paperwork as it requires 
reports of fewer accidents.

Federalism

    We have analyzed this Final Rule under E.O. 13132, Federalism, and 
have determined that it does not have enough implications for 
federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 
States will remain free to impose stricter requirements for reports of 
accidents involving recreational vessels.

[[Page 21675]]

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 State, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of 
$100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this Final Rule will not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this Rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This Final 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.

Reform of Civil Justice

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this Final 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 have considered the environmental impact of this Final Rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lC, this Rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. The Rule would merely raise the threshold 
of property damage for reports of accidents involving recreational 
vessels. A Determination of Categorical Exclusion is available in the 
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 173

    Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 173 as follows:

Subpart C--Casualty and Accident Reporting

    1. The citation of authority for part 173 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2110, 6101, 12301, 12302; 
OMB Circular A-25; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. Revise Sec. 173.55(a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 173.55  Report of casualty or accident.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Damage to vessels and other property totals $2,000 or more or 
there is a complete loss of any vessel; or a collision occurs involving 
two or more vessels, regardless of the amount of damage to property; or
* * * * *

    3. Revise the heading of Sec. 173.57 to read as follows:


Sec. 173.57  Contents of report.

    4. Revise the heading of Sec. 173.59 to read as follows:


Sec. 173.59  Where to submit report.

    Dated: March 15, 2001.
Terry M. Cross,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 01-10839 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U