[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53735-53740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20954]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard amends its advance notification requirements 
in the Notification of Arrival regulations for vessels bound for ports 
or places in the United States. In addition to the

[[Page 53736]]

information already required by these regulations, this rule will 
require the owner, master, operator, agent, or person in charge of the 
vessel to identify the charterer of their vessel. The addition of the 
charterer information will allow us to better identify charterers 
associated with substandard vessels.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 18, 2002, except for 
Secs. 160.T208(c)(15)(iv) and (c)(16) and 160.T212(b)(20), which are 
effective September 18, 2002, through September 30, 2002.

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-2001-8659 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 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 rule, 
call Project Manager Michael Jendrossek, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of 
Vessel and Facility, Operating and Environmental Standards Division (G-
MSO), telephone 202-267-0836. If you have questions on viewing the 
docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of 
Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On August 18, 2000, we published a notice of request for comment 
entitled ``Notification of Arrival: Addition of Charterer or Cargo 
Owner to Required Information'' (65 FR 50481). The notice sought to 
enhance the Coast Guard's understanding of the role of charterers and 
cargo owners in influencing the quality of shipping. We received 16 
comments, which were summarized in a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) (66 FR 21710, May 1, 2001). The NPRM proposed including the 
charterer information, but not the cargo owner information. After 
publication of the NPRM, we received 10 letters containing 21 comments 
on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and none was 
held.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard initiated the Port State Control program in April 
1994 because of concerns raised over the steady increase in the number 
of substandard non-U.S. flagged vessels visiting U.S. waters. The 
program's goal is the elimination of substandard vessels from U.S. 
waters. To meet this goal, we developed a risk-based targeting matrix 
that evaluated a foreign vessel's Flag State, owner, operator, 
classification society, vessel type, and its compliance history. The 
matrix allowed limited Coast Guard resources to be directed to those 
vessels that posed the greatest risk to safety and the environment. The 
matrix's basis is derived from information obtained as part of a 
vessel's notification of arrival, required by 33 CFR part 160, subpart 
C. The Captain of the Port (COTP) uses the matrix as a tool to score 
each arriving foreign vessel. The COTP then prioritizes boardings based 
on each vessel's score. 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 substandard vessels calling on U.S. 
ports.
    The Coast Guard knows 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, 
safety, and casualty history. It is the Coast Guard's opinion these two 
scenarios demonstrate the value of collecting the arriving vessel's 
charterer as one more factor in the Port State Control matrix.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received 10 comment letters containing 21 comments in response 
to the NPRM (66 FR 21710, May 1, 2001) and our proposed amendments to 
the advance notification requirements in 33 CFR part 160, subpart C.
    We received four comments supporting the rule. Of those, two 
commenters stated publishing a list of substandard vessels could 
enhance vessel compliance with safety and pollution standards by 
deterring the chartering of substandard vessels. One indicated the rule 
would improve the Port State Control initiative by bringing greater 
transparency to the Coast Guard's ability to target specific vessels 
for inspections. One stated the rule would allow the Coast Guard to 
build a database to properly assess if some companies are frequently 
associated with chartering substandard vessels.
    We received four comments addressing ownership differences. One 
asked if the rule would regulate time charterers, voyage charterers, or 
both. The commenter said charterers are not normally responsible for, 
and have no direct control over the condition of vessels that they 
charter. According to the commenter, changing the regulation will not 
help the Coast Guard ensure vessels are operated safely. We disagree. 
The rule will apply to all charterers that are responsible for 
chartering the majority of a vessel's cargo carrying capacity. When a 
charterer is contracting for the services of a vessel to carry goods, 
that individual or organization has the greatest amount of control in 
selecting a vessel in suitable condition to make a voyage to the United 
States. For example, if the vessel is substandard, the charterer can 
opt to not enter into a charterer agreement.
    We received three comments addressing the definition of 
``charterer'', with two asking for a clarification in defining the 
term. Of those, one stated the definition could create confusion and 
uncertainty in determining the type of charterer. One comment said only 
the ``head charterer'' should be listed because that would identify the 
most important ``charterer'' and reduce the complication of listing 
every ``charterer''. We agree with the comment's intent. We have 
modified the language to alleviate any confusion as to whose identity 
we are seeking. The Coast Guard is requiring only the identity of the 
individual or organization that contracts for the majority of a 
vessel's cargo carrying capacity. The person or organization that 
contracts for this amount of space has control over vessel selection 
and, therefore, the condition of the vessel they choose to hire. It is 
not our intent to capture minor space charterers who are not involved 
in vessel selection. We also added explicit reference to the ``types'' 
of charters that are subject to this change.
    We received two comments in support of not collecting information 
on cargo owners, which were included in our August 2000 request for 
comments. Both agreed that the frequent changes in ownership of given 
cargo would overly complicate the reporting effort. In response to our 
request for comments, we received numerous negative comments opposed to 
the collection of cargo owner information. Based on these responses, we 
elected not to propose collecting cargo owner information in the NPRM, 
or in this final rule.
    We received two comments that stated the charterer of a vessel is

[[Page 53737]]

generally considered confidential and commercial proprietary 
information. Of those, one stated publishing a list of charterers 
associated with detentions would not improve compliance, but instead 
hurt sensitive marketplaces such as the Great Lakes and that the 
marketplace will detract a charterer from substandard vessel usage 
instead of forcing better compliance. The Coast Guard disagrees. Anyone 
involved in the selection and chartering of a vessel to carry cargo to 
the United States is subject to analysis to determine if their business 
practices pose an environmental threat. Additionally, the charterer 
information is being provided to the government, not to the public. Any 
subsequent release to the public, under the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), for example, would be analyzed to ensure no actual proprietary 
information is released.
    One commenter addressed applicability involving certain vessel 
operations. The commenter stated vessels conducting operations, such as 
drilling or construction on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), do not 
have a ``charterer'' under the rule's definition. The commenter also 
said each vessel arriving at an OCS facility is contracted for its crew 
and services by a ``lessee'' or ``permitee'', not for its capacity to 
transport cargo to a port. In cases involving vessels that do not have 
charterers in accordance with the definition of this subpart, a vessel 
need only provide all other pre-arrival notification information.
    One commenter asked that bareboat chartering agreements not fall 
under the definition of ``charterer'' because it is already included in 
the existing Notification of Arrival requirements. The commenter stated 
under bareboat agreements, the charterer is the ``legal and de facto 
operator.'' We agree. Bareboat, or demise charterer agreements are not 
part of the ``charterer'' definition in this subpart. Bareboat and 
demise charterers are further discussed in 46 CFR 169.107, amended by 
final rule, published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2002 (67 FR 
34756).
    One commenter indicated that time and voyage charterers should be 
considered ``charterers'' as part of the Notification of Arrival 
requirements because those agreements are comparable to ``single 
charterer--single vessel--single cargo'' scenarios. We agree with the 
comment's intent. The purpose of this rulemaking is to identify the 
single entity responsible for selecting a vessel for a particular 
voyage. Thus, we are looking to capture charterer information for the 
type of agreement described by the commenter.
    One commenter said the definition is too broad and would create 
multiple ``charterers'' among liner carriers who are sharing space on 
the same voyage. The commenter stated the Coast Guard should only be 
interested in ``the carrier directly responsible for the mechanical 
operation of the specific vessel arriving in a U.S. port.'' We agree. 
Our definition of charterer, provided in Sec. 160.203, captures the 
individual (or corporation) who charters for the majority of a vessel's 
cargo capacity. Thus, anyone chartering less than the majority would 
not be included in this rule. If, however, one individual contracts for 
a majority of the vessel and then subcharters the vessel's available 
cargo space, the original contractor is the charterer we want to 
identify.
    One commenter indicated adding the charterer's name would be a 
potential problem and could do more harm than good, but did not go into 
specifics. Without more information regarding the problem mentioned by 
the commenter, we are unable to give a specific response. The Coast 
Guard reiterates its belief that collecting charterer information will 
increase the effectiveness of the Port State Control matrix.
    One commenter asked the Coast Guard to look into the duplication of 
reporting requirements in regard to mobile offshore drilling units 
(MODUs). The commenter recommended we add language to the rule to this 
effect: if your vessel meets the requirements of 33 CFR 146.202, you 
are also in compliance with 33 CFR part 160. We disagree. The reporting 
requirements contained in 33 CFR 146.202 are specifically for 
operations on the Outer Continental Shelf and do not apply to arrival 
and departure from ports within the United States.
    One commenter stated the Coast Guard is seeking information on the 
majority of a vessel's cargo capacity instead of the individual goods 
being delivered to a port. The commenter said the rule would not stop 
charterers from seeking substandard vessels to reduce their 
transportation cost. We disagree. We are seeking information on the 
individual or organization that contracts for the majority of a 
vessel's cargo carrying capacity. It is our contention that this 
individual or organization has the power of vessel selection in the 
process and, therefore, can exercise the option of choosing a vessel 
that is not substandard.
    One commenter said the Coast Guard's Port State Control matrix has 
been successful in identifying substandard vessels and has reduced 
accidents and pollution, but identifying the charterer for every vessel 
is unnecessary. We disagree. Collecting charterer information will 
enhance our ability to utilize limited resources to enforce our Port 
State Control program more effectively.
    One commenter supports the temporary collection of charterer 
information stating the collection should be for at least one year and 
only for internal use by the Coast Guard. The commenter stated there 
should be a clear connection between the requirement and the desired 
result. The commenter also said that the rule would not help the Coast 
Guard in identifying substandard vessels. We disagree. The object of 
the program is to identify charterers that continually use substandard 
vessels to carry cargo. When scored according to their history, 
charterers that fit into the high-risk category will have their vessels 
targeted for boarding.
    One commenter asked that the Great Lakes be considered separately 
in regard to this rule. According to the commenter, more than 80 
percent of the vessels using the Great Lakes Waterway system are 
already known by the Marine Safety Office Buffalo and the Saint 
Lawrence Seaway agencies, who would know what vessels throw up a ``red 
flag'' because of the vessels' regular use of the Lakes. We disagree. 
This rule seeks information on charterers, not vessels. The Coast Guard 
is adding an important element, the charterer, to the targeting matrix. 
This additional information will allow the Coast Guard to further 
utilize its limited resources in the most judicious manner.
    One commenter stated a charterer should not be responsible or 
liable for the conditions over which they have no control. The 
commenter added that voyage charterers, in particular, have little or 
no role in a vessel's compliance with the international standards. With 
the Great Lakes being a small system, the commenter indicates enhancing 
the PSC matrix would be unnecessary. We disagree. When an individual or 
organization seeks to charter a vessel for the purpose of carrying 
cargo to the United States, they have the option of ensuring that the 
vessel they charter is in suitable condition to be in compliance with 
all U.S. laws and international accords.

Discussion of Final Rule

    In our August, 2000, NPRM for this rulemaking, we proposed amending 
the permanent requirements in 33 CFR part 160. On October 4, 2001, 
however, the Coast Guard published a temporary final

[[Page 53738]]

rule entitled, ``Temporary Requirements for Notification of Arrival in 
U.S. Ports'' (66 FR 50565). That temporary rule suspended the majority 
of the sections we had proposed amending and added temporary sections 
in their place. That temporary rule was amended on November 19, 2001, 
and January 18, 2002 (66 FR 57877; 67 FR 2571) and on May 30, 2002, was 
extended until September 30, 2002 (67 FR 37682). On June 19, 2002, the 
Coast Guard published an NPRM (67 FR 41659) proposing to make permanent 
changes to the notice of arrival requirements. Then on July 23, 2002, 
we proposed an additional extension of the temporary rule (67 FR 
48073). The temporary rule, therefore, could be effective until the 
permanent changes are published, perhaps until March 31, 2003. We have 
decided, therefore, to make the changes to the currently effective 
``temporary'' sections in 33 CFR part 160 instead of to the suspended 
permanent sections, as proposed in our NPRM. The changes made by this 
rule will then be incorporated into the permanent sections in 33 CFR 
part 160 when those revisions are completed.
    With this final rule allowing the Coast Guard to enforce the new 
requirement for charterer information, we also recognize that the 
various names used for different charterer scenarios adds to some of 
the confusion regarding this requirement. In order to clarify this 
rulemaking, we added definitions for time and voyage charters into the 
regulations, and we offer the following explanations of various types 
of charterers:
     Time Charterer. The party who hires a vessel for a 
specific amount of time. The owner and his crew manage the vessel, but 
the charterer selects the ports of destination.
     Voyage Charterer. The party who hires a vessel for a 
single voyage. The owner and his crew manage the vessel, but the 
charterer selects the ports of destination.
     Demise Charterer. A legally binding document for a term of 
one year or more under which, for the period of the charter, the party 
who leases or charters the vessel, known as the bareboat or demise 
charterer, assumes legal responsibility for all of the levels of 
ownership, including insuring, manning, supplying, repairing, fueling, 
maintaining, and operating the vessel. The term ``bareboat or demise 
charterer'' is synonymous with ``owner pro hac vice''. This information 
is captured through the submission of the owner/operator information 
for the Advance Notice of Arrival.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This 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).
    The regulatory baseline for this final rule is the existing 
requirements in 33 CFR part 160. On October 4, 2001, the Coast Guard 
published a temporary final rule entitled, ``Temporary Requirements for 
Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports'' (66 FR 50565). The temporary 
final rule suspended the sections of which this rulemaking amends until 
September 30, 2002. Also, on May 30, 2002, the Coast Guard published an 
NPRM (67 FR 37682) proposing to amend the suspended sections by making 
permanent the provisions of the temporary final rule.
    The population of vessels affected by the final rule will also be 
modified by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled 
``Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports'' published in the Federal 
Register on June 19, 2002 (67 FR 41659), which proposes to further 
amend requirements for the Notification of Arrival. The proposed rule 
removed reporting exemptions for vessels under the Automated Mutual 
Assistance Vessel Rescue System (AMVER), certain vessels operating 
solely on the Great Lakes, and vessels operating on a regularly 
scheduled route. The evaluation for this final rule considers the cost 
for submitting the charterer information for this new population of 
vessels.
    The cost of the final rule to industry is presented in Table 1. The 
estimate of the number of arrivals is based on average annual arrivals 
for 1998 and 1999. The ``Non-AMVER/Non-Great Lakes'' number of arrivals 
is for those non-exempt vessels covered by existing Notification of 
Arrival requirements in 33 CFR part 160 and were included in the 
evaluation of the proposed rule for charterers. The AMVER and Great 
Lakes number of arrivals is the new population of vessels that would be 
required to submit Notifications of Arrival under the proposed rule 
published on June 19, 2002. These vessels would also be required to 
complete the information on vessel charterer under this final rule. We 
estimate that including the information for the charterer will require 
1 minute (0.017 hours) to complete on the Notification of Arrival form, 
at a cost of $43 per hour.

  Table 1.--Annual Cost and Benefit of the Proposed Rule (2002 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Cost per
            NOA report               Arrivals     arrival    Annual cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-AMVER/Non-Great Lakes........       63,286        $0.72      $45,566
AMVER............................        4,040         0.72        2,909
Great Lakes......................          813         0.72          585
                                  --------------------------------------
    Totals.......................       68,139  ...........     $49,060
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detail may not calculate to total due to independent rounding.

    As shown, this rule is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 
annually. Under the proposed rule for ``Notification of Arrival in U.S. 
Ports'' published June 19, 2002, vessel owners and operators could now 
consolidate multiple arrivals in U.S. ports in a single Notification of 
Arrival (where previously they could not). Consequently, the number of 
arrivals presented in Table 1 may overstate the actual number of annual 
arrivals in U.S. ports that will have individual reports. The arrivals 
in Table 1, therefore, represent the ``worst-case'' scenario and the 
costs of the final rule are conservative estimates.
    Over the next 10 years, the Present Value (PV) cost of the final 
rule is $367,697 (2002-2011, 7 percent discount rate, 2002 dollars).
    The potential benefits of the final rule are not quantifiable, but 
include the

[[Page 53739]]

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) the Coast Guard will target substandard vessels 
traveling U.S. waters that pose safety and environmental risks; (4) the 
Coast Guard will spend less effort on compliant vessels; (5) the Coast 
Guard will spend more effort examining previously unboarded vessels; 
(6) the Coast Guard will have more information on foreign vessels 
traveling U.S. waters; (7) the Coast Guard and vessel owners will have 
better understanding of the risks posed by foreign vessels; and (8) the 
degrees of liability would be clarified.

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.
    The final rule does not include any special provisions for small 
entities. However, the burden required by this rule is so minimal (only 
1 minute per Notification of Arrival) that 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.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
    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 rule calls for a new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting, 
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar 
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a 
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate 
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering 
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection.
    Title: Notification of Arrival: Addition of Charterer to Required 
Information.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This rule amends 33 CFR 
160.203, 160.T208, and 160.T212 to include the name of the vessel's 
charterer as part of the information required for 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, Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival and Departure. The new 
collection of information estimate is based on the current collection, 
which is accounted for in the temporary rule published October 4, 2001, 
and the NPRM published June 19, 2002.
    Use of Information: The Coast Guard will use the information 
collected to identify those vessels that pose the highest risks to U.S. 
waterways and ports, and target those vessels for inspection.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are vessel crews 
traveling U.S. waterways and hailing U.S. ports that must report an 
Advance Notification of Arrival.
    Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved collection number 
of respondents is 10,367 (respondents are owners/operators of the 
vessels calling on U.S. ports annually). This final rule will not 
increase the number of respondents.
    Frequency of Response: Owners/operators of vessels making calls in 
U.S. ports will submit Notification of Arrival reports as necessary. 
The existing OMB-approved collection number of responses is 68,139. 
This final rule will not increase the frequency of response.
    Burden of Response: The existing OMB-approved collection burden of 
response is 74 minutes (1.233 hours) (burden of response is the time 
required to complete the paperwork requirements of the rule for a 
single response). This final rule will increase the burden of response 
by 1 minute (0.017 hours) for a net total of 75 minutes (1.250 hours).
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved 
collection total annual burden is 174,179 hours (total annual burden is 
the time required to complete the paperwork requirements of the rule 
for all responses). This final rule will increase the total annual 
burden by 1,136 hours for a net total of 175,315 hours.
    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we submitted a copy of this rule 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the 
collection of information.

Federalism

    We analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 
existing advance notice of arrival regulation in 33 CFR 160.213, which 
is issued under Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, is 
preemptive of any State rule that 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 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.

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.

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.

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

[[Page 53740]]

an economically significant rule and does not create 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, 
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.

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded 
that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. This rule is a procedural regulation that 
does not have any environmental impact. 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 
recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
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. 160.203, add in alphabetical order the definitions for 
``Charterer'', ``Time Charterer'' and ``Voyage 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. This includes ``time 
charterers'' and ``voyage charterers''.
* * * * *
    Time charterer means the party who hires a vessel for a specific 
amount of time. The owner and his crew manage the vessel, but the 
charterer selects the ports of destination.
    Voyage charterer means the party who hires a vessel for a single 
voyage. The owner and his crew manage the vessel, but the charterer 
selects the ports of destination.

    3. In Sec. 160.T208, which was added at 66 FR 50565, October 4, 
2001, effective October 4, 2001, until June 15, 2002, and amended by 66 
FR 57877, November 19, 2001, and by 67 FR 2571, January 18, 2002, and 
extended in effect until September 30, 2002, by 67 FR 37682, May 30, 
2002, revise paragraph (c)(15)(iv) and add new paragraph (c)(16) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 160.T208  Notice of arrival: Vessels bound for ports or places in 
the United States.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (15) * * *
    (iv) Passport number; and
    (16) Name of the vessel's charterer.
* * * * *

    4. In Sec. 160.T212, which was added at 66 FR 50565, October 4, 
2001, effective October 4, 2001, until June 15, 2002, amended by 66 FR 
57877, November 19, 2001, and extended in effect until September 30, 
2002, by 67 FR 37682, May 30, 2002, add new paragraph (b)(20) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 160.T212  Notice of arrival: Vessels carrying certain dangerous 
cargo.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (20) Name of the vessel's charterer;
* * * * *

    Dated: August 13, 2002.
J.P. Brusseau,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and 
Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 02-20954 Filed 8-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P