21710 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 81⁄2 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 riskbased 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 inhouse 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

21712 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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

Estimated number of port calls

Clerical

labor minutes per

port call

Clerical

labor minutes per

year

Cost per

clerical

labor

hour

Cost per

clerical

labor minutes

Total

annual

cost

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

21714 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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:

§ 160.201 Applicability and exceptions to

applicability.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(vii) Name of the charterer of the

vessel;

* * * * *

3. In § 160.203 add in alphabetical

order the definition for ‘‘Charterer’’ to

read as follows:

§ 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 § 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:

§ 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 § 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:

§ 160.211 Notice of arrival: Vessels

carrying certain dangerous cargo.

(a) * * *

(7) Name of the charterer of the vessel;

* * * * *

6. Amend § 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:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09–01–015]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone: Captain of the Port

Chicago Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish safety zones for annual

fireworks displays located at the Navy

Pier, Chicago, Illinois. This action is

necessary to provide for the safety of life

and property on navigable waters during

each event. This action is intended to

restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the

Chicago Harbor.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

or delivered to: Commanding Officer,

U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office

Chicago, 215 W. 83rd Street, Suite D,

Burr Ridge, Illinois 60521. Marine

Safety Office Chicago maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments and material received from

the public, as well as documents

indicated in this preamble as being

available in the docket, will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at MSO Chicago

between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday

through Friday, except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

MST2 Mike Hogan, U.S. Coast Guard

Marine Safety Office Chicago, 215 W.

83rd Street, Suite D, Chicago, Illinois

60521 (630) 986–2175.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number on

this rulemaking (CGD09–01–015),

indicate the specific section of this

proposal to which each comment