Great Lakes-Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones, 18724-18727 [2017-08132]

Download as PDF 18724 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules 500MB, DG–800A, and DG–800B gliders, all serial numbers, that: (1) Have textile fabric covered fuel hoses installed in the fuselage; and (2) are certificated in any category. Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Metal fabric covered fuel hoses installed in the engine area are not affected by this AD. (d) Subject Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28: Fuel. nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS (e) Reason This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect in certain textile fabric covered fuel hoses, which could cause the fuel hose to fail. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel hose, which could cause reduced fuel supply and result in partial or total loss of power. (f) Actions and Compliance Unless already done, do the following actions: (1) Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 1. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 800–44, 500–10, DG–SS–02, dated November 9, 2016. Note 2 to paragraph (f)(1) through (6) of this AD: DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 800–44, DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. 500–10, and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note (TN) No. DG–SS–02 are all dated November 9, 2016, and co-published as one document. (2) If any kinking or wet fabric covering is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within the next 14 days after the inspection, replace all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800–44, 500–10, DG–SS–02, dated November 9, 2016. (3) If no kinking or wet fabric covering is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all textile fabric covered fuel hoses located in the fuselage following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800–44, 500–10, DG–SS–02, dated November 9, 2016. (4) Within 12 months after doing the replacements required in paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect all fuel hoses in the fuselage for any signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks. For this inspection, the ignition switch must be turned on to run the electric fuel pump to demonstrate an operating fuel pressure, as specified in Instructions 4. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800–44, 500–10, DG–SS–02, dated November 9, 2016. (5) If any signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:52 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 AD, replace the defective fuel hose in the fuselage following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800–44, 500–10, DG–SS–02, dated November 9, 2016. Continue with the repetitive inspections as specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD. (6) If no signs of wear, fissures, kinks, lack of tight fit, or leaks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, at intervals not to exceed 10 years, replace the fuel hoses in the fuselage with new fuel hoses following Instructions 2. of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH TN No. 800–44, 500– 10, DG–SS–02, dated November 9, 2016. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2015–0084] RIN 1625–AA00, AA11 Great Lakes—Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones Coast Guard, DHS. Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: (g) Other FAA AD Provisions The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329– 4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC on any glider to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service. The Coast Guard proposes to amend its Great Lakes Regulated Navigation Areas to include one additional regulated navigation area in Green Bay, Wisconsin and safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay, MI. These zones will apply during the winter months and are necessary to protect waterway users, vessels, and mariners from hazards associated with winter conditions and navigation. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 22, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2015–0084 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. (h) Related Information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016–0259, dated December 21, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2017–0343. For service information related to this AD, contact DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, OttoLilienthal Weg 2, D–76646 Bruchsal, Germany; telephone: +49 (0)7251 3202–0; email: info@dg-flugzeugbau.de; Internet: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/ ?noredirect=en_US. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 13, 2017. Brian Yanez, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2017–07937 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 SUMMARY: If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Matthew Stroebel, Ninth District Coast Guard Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216–902–6060, email matthew.k.stroebel@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis On May 22, 2015, the Coast Guard proposed a rule to establish three regulated navigation areas (RNA) and two safety zones in its Great Lakes area. These zones were intended to improve the safety of both recreational users and commercial shipping in high use areas. During the comment period that ended July 6, 2015, we received a total of 6 comments. We received one comment E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM 21APP1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules from the Lake Carriers’ Association stating that it found the rule unnecessary and expressed concern that the rule will impede vessels’ ability to respond quickly and creatively to winter conditions. The comment suggested that COTP Orders specifically tailored to existing and forecasted conditions is a better way to respond to hazardous ice conditions. We agree that in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac, COTP orders can be used instead of an RNA since safety issues occur less frequently in these areas. Our determination is that in Green Bay a RNA is necessary due to the high concentration of recreational users and expected increased commercial vessel traffic in the zone. We received 1 comment that did not relate to the rule. Finally, we received 3 comments in favor of the Erie Islands safety zone and two in favor of the Maumee Bay regulated navigation area. Based on the comments received regarding the NPRM, this proposed rulemaking has been amended. We believe that regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac are not necessary. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking retracts the Coast Guard’s proposals to create new regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac. We also retract our proposal to re-designate three existing regulated navigation areas as safety zones. The three areas that were proposed to be redesignated as safety zones serve two functions; to establish a single route which optimizes limited icebreaking resources and to protect recreational ice users. By keeping these areas as RNA’s it emphasizes that these areas do not solely exist to protect recreational users, but to fulfill an important function in maintaining an efficient navigation plan during ice covered periods. Instead, this rulemaking proposes to retain the addition of two safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay to protect recreational ice users from the dangers associated with vessels disturbing the ice that is primarily used for recreation. We also propose to retain adding one regulated navigation area in Green Bay to manage increased commercial traffic in an area that typically experiences high volumes of recreational use. The Coast Guard does not propose changes to the already existing regulated navigation areas in this section. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:52 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.901 based on the foregoing discussion. The Coast Guard proposes to make paragraph (b) in the current regulation into paragraph (a)(2)(i). Further, the Coast Guard proposes to add paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to establish a regulated navigation area in Green Bay. Within the regulated navigation area the COTP may issue orders to control vessel traffic. Prior to issuing orders to vessel traffic the COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. This regulated navigation area would include the waters of Green Bay, bounded by a line between Peshtigo Point and Sherwood Point. Green Bay is an area that has many recreational ice users that are accustomed to Green Bay being free from vessel transits during the winter months. Vessels have requested to transit through Green Bay during the ice season at a frequency of 2 to 4 transits per week. The Coast Guard needs to proactively manage activity within Green Bay to ensure the safety of both commercial vessel traffic and recreational ice users. The Coast Guard proposes to add a paragraph (c) and a paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 165.901 to accommodate the addition of two safety zones to the current regulation. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) establishes a safety zone in the Lake Erie Islands. The zone would be opened and closed by the Captain of the Port (COTP) after providing the public at least 72 hours of advance notice. This safety zone would span from the city of Huron, OH on the eastern side to Port Clinton, OH on its western side. The northern border of the safety zone would be the international border which is located between Kelly’s Island and Pelee Island. No vessel would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. This safety zone will protect recreational ice users from the hazards associated with vessels breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) establishes a safety zone in Saginaw Bay. The zone would be opened and closed by the Captain of the Port (COTP) after providing the public at least 72 hours of advance notice. This safety zone would include the waters in Saginaw Bay, bounded by a line between Tawas Point and Port Austin Reef. No vessel would PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 18725 be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. This safety zone will protect recreational ice users from the hazards associated with vessels breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone. Proposed paragraph (d) will include the information relevant to the enforcement of these safety zones. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’) and 13563 (‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ‘‘for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.’’ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows. E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM 21APP1 18726 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS The proposed amendments involve closure areas and a vessel management area, designed to be implemented only during winter months, as ice conditions dictate. As to the impact of the closure area on Lake Erie near the South Channel and the Erie Islands, OH, the Coast Guard notes that industry vessels have taken alternative routes bypassing the Erie Islands when recreational ice users are present. The Coast Guard anticipates the same practice when this area is closed. Further, regarding the closure area on the waters of Lake Huron in Saginaw Bay, Michigan, the Coast Guard anticipates closing the bay after giving due consideration to industry’s need to traverse the area. Moreover, under certain circumstances, the Coast Guard may permit vessel traffic to transit the closure areas. Regarding the regulated navigation area in Green Bay, it is designed to regulate the conditions of vessel transit for safety. Overall, we expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 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. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. 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 (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. 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. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:52 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. C. Collection of Information This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. E. 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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. F. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves amendments to navigation regulations and establishment of a safety zones. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels. V. Public Participation and Request for Comments We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http:// www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM 21APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086). Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. ■ 2. Revise § 165.901 to read as follows: § 165.901 Great Lakes—regulated navigation areas and safety zones. nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS (a) The following are regulated navigation areas: (1) Lake Huron. (i) The waters of Lake Huron known as South Channel between Bois Blanc Island and Cheboygan, Michigan; bounded by a line north from Cheyboygan Crib Light (LL–1340) at 45°39′48″ N., 84°27′36″ W.; to Bois Blanc Island at 45°43′42″ N., 84°27′36″ W.; and a line north from the mainland at 45°43′00″ N., 84°35′30″ W.; to the western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at 45°48′42″ N., 84°35′30″ W. (ii) The waters of Lake Huron between Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, Michigan, bounded by a line east from position 45°52′12″ N., 84°43′00″ W.; to Mackinac Island at 45°52′12″ N., 84°39′00″ W.; and a line east from the mainland at 45°53′12″ N., 84°43′30″ W.; VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:52 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 to the northern tangent of Mackinac Island at 45°53′12″ N., 84°38′48″ W. (2) Lake Michigan. (i) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Gray’s Reef Passage bounded by a line from Gray’s Reef Light (LL–2006) at 45°46′00″ N., 85°09′12″ W.; to White Shoals Light (LL–2003) at 45°50′30″ N., 85°08′06″ W.; to a point at 45°49′12″ N., 85°04′48″ W.; then to a point at 45°45′42″ N., 85°08′42″ W.; then to the point of beginning. (ii) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Green Bay from Rock Island Passage or Porte Des Morts Passage north to Escanaba Light at 45°44′48″ N., 087°02′14″ W.; south to the Fox River Entrance at 44°32′22″ N., 088°00′19″ W., to the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal from Sherwood Point Light at 44°53′34″ N., 087°26′00″ W.; to Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal Light at 44°47′42″ N., 087°18′48″ W.; and then to the point of beginning. (b) Regulations. (1) In the RNAs under paragraph (a) of this section, the District Commander or respective COTP may issue orders to control vessel traffic for reasons which include but are not limited to: Channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather conditions, or unusual water levels. Prior to issuing these orders, the District Commander or respective COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. The respective COTP may close and open these regulated navigation areas as ice conditions dictate. (2) Prior to the closing or opening of the regulated navigation areas, the COTP will give interested parties, including both shipping interests and island residents, not less than 72 hours notice of the action. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. No vessel may navigate in a regulated navigation area which has been closed by the COTP. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 18727 discretion to authorize vessels to operate outside of issued orders. (c) The following are safety zones: (1) Lake Erie. The area known as the Lake Erie Islands which is defined as the U.S. waters of Lake Erie at the intersection of the International Border at 082°55′00″ W., following the International Border eastward to the intersection of the International Border at 082°35′00″ W., moving straight south to position 41°25′00″ N., 082°35′00″ W., continuing west to position 41°25′00″ N., 082°55′00″ W., and ending north at the International Border and 082°55′00″ W. (2) Lake Huron. The waters of Lake Huron known as Saginaw Bay, Michigan; bounded by a line from Port Austin Reef Light (LL–10275) at 44°04′55″ N., 082°58′57″ W.; to Tawas Light (LL–11240) at 44°15′13″ N., 083°26′58″ W.; to Saginaw Bay Range Front Light (LL–10550) at 43°38′54″ N., 083°51′06″ W.; then to the point of beginning. (d) Enforcement. (1) The District Commander or respective Captain of the Port (COTP) will enforce these safety zones as ice conditions dictate. Under normal seasonal conditions, only one closing each winter and one opening each spring are anticipated. (2) Prior to closing or opening these safety zones, the District Commander or respective COTP will give the public advance notice, not less than 72 hours prior to the closure. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. Dated: April 10, 2017. J.E. Ryan, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2017–08132 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM 21APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18724-18727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0084]
RIN 1625-AA00, AA11


Great Lakes--Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its Great Lakes Regulated 
Navigation Areas to include one additional regulated navigation area in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin and safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and 
Saginaw Bay, MI. These zones will apply during the winter months and 
are necessary to protect waterway users, vessels, and mariners from 
hazards associated with winter conditions and navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0084 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email LT Matthew Stroebel, Ninth District Coast Guard 
Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6060, email 
matthew.k.stroebel@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On May 22, 2015, the Coast Guard proposed a rule to establish three 
regulated navigation areas (RNA) and two safety zones in its Great 
Lakes area. These zones were intended to improve the safety of both 
recreational users and commercial shipping in high use areas. During 
the comment period that ended July 6, 2015, we received a total of 6 
comments. We received one comment

[[Page 18725]]

from the Lake Carriers' Association stating that it found the rule 
unnecessary and expressed concern that the rule will impede vessels' 
ability to respond quickly and creatively to winter conditions. The 
comment suggested that COTP Orders specifically tailored to existing 
and forecasted conditions is a better way to respond to hazardous ice 
conditions. We agree that in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac, 
COTP orders can be used instead of an RNA since safety issues occur 
less frequently in these areas. Our determination is that in Green Bay 
a RNA is necessary due to the high concentration of recreational users 
and expected increased commercial vessel traffic in the zone.
    We received 1 comment that did not relate to the rule. Finally, we 
received 3 comments in favor of the Erie Islands safety zone and two in 
favor of the Maumee Bay regulated navigation area.
    Based on the comments received regarding the NPRM, this proposed 
rulemaking has been amended. We believe that regulated navigation areas 
in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac are not necessary. This 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking retracts the Coast Guard's 
proposals to create new regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and 
the Straits of Mackinac. We also retract our proposal to re-designate 
three existing regulated navigation areas as safety zones. The three 
areas that were proposed to be redesignated as safety zones serve two 
functions; to establish a single route which optimizes limited 
icebreaking resources and to protect recreational ice users. By keeping 
these areas as RNA's it emphasizes that these areas do not solely exist 
to protect recreational users, but to fulfill an important function in 
maintaining an efficient navigation plan during ice covered periods.
    Instead, this rulemaking proposes to retain the addition of two 
safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay to protect 
recreational ice users from the dangers associated with vessels 
disturbing the ice that is primarily used for recreation. We also 
propose to retain adding one regulated navigation area in Green Bay to 
manage increased commercial traffic in an area that typically 
experiences high volumes of recreational use.
    The Coast Guard does not propose changes to the already existing 
regulated navigation areas in this section. The Coast Guard proposes 
this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.901 based on the 
foregoing discussion.
    The Coast Guard proposes to make paragraph (b) in the current 
regulation into paragraph (a)(2)(i). Further, the Coast Guard proposes 
to add paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to establish a regulated navigation area in 
Green Bay. Within the regulated navigation area the COTP may issue 
orders to control vessel traffic. Prior to issuing orders to vessel 
traffic the COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably practicable 
under the circumstances. This regulated navigation area would include 
the waters of Green Bay, bounded by a line between Peshtigo Point and 
Sherwood Point. Green Bay is an area that has many recreational ice 
users that are accustomed to Green Bay being free from vessel transits 
during the winter months. Vessels have requested to transit through 
Green Bay during the ice season at a frequency of 2 to 4 transits per 
week. The Coast Guard needs to proactively manage activity within Green 
Bay to ensure the safety of both commercial vessel traffic and 
recreational ice users.
    The Coast Guard proposes to add a paragraph (c) and a paragraph (d) 
to 33 CFR 165.901 to accommodate the addition of two safety zones to 
the current regulation. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) establishes a safety 
zone in the Lake Erie Islands. The zone would be opened and closed by 
the Captain of the Port (COTP) after providing the public at least 72 
hours of advance notice. This safety zone would span from the city of 
Huron, OH on the eastern side to Port Clinton, OH on its western side. 
The northern border of the safety zone would be the international 
border which is located between Kelly's Island and Pelee Island. No 
vessel would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining 
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The District 
Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels 
to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. This 
safety zone will protect recreational ice users from the hazards 
associated with vessels breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) establishes a safety zone in Saginaw Bay. 
The zone would be opened and closed by the Captain of the Port (COTP) 
after providing the public at least 72 hours of advance notice. This 
safety zone would include the waters in Saginaw Bay, bounded by a line 
between Tawas Point and Port Austin Reef. No vessel would be permitted 
to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or 
a designated representative. The District Commander or respective COTP 
retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed 
safety zone under certain circumstances. This safety zone will protect 
recreational ice users from the hazards associated with vessels 
breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone.
    Proposed paragraph (d) will include the information relevant to the 
enforcement of these safety zones. The regulatory text we are proposing 
appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and 
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies 
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives 
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to reduce regulation 
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new 
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for 
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently 
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, 
this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See 
OMB's Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of 
the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017). A regulatory 
analysis (RA) follows.

[[Page 18726]]

    The proposed amendments involve closure areas and a vessel 
management area, designed to be implemented only during winter months, 
as ice conditions dictate. As to the impact of the closure area on Lake 
Erie near the South Channel and the Erie Islands, OH, the Coast Guard 
notes that industry vessels have taken alternative routes bypassing the 
Erie Islands when recreational ice users are present. The Coast Guard 
anticipates the same practice when this area is closed. Further, 
regarding the closure area on the waters of Lake Huron in Saginaw Bay, 
Michigan, the Coast Guard anticipates closing the bay after giving due 
consideration to industry's need to traverse the area. Moreover, under 
certain circumstances, the Coast Guard may permit vessel traffic to 
transit the closure areas. Regarding the regulated navigation area in 
Green Bay, it is designed to regulate the conditions of vessel transit 
for safety. Overall, we expect the economic impact of this proposed 
rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation is 
unnecessary.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    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 (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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. If the rule would affect 
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you 
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, 
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that 
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action 
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would 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. If 
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or 
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. 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 (adjusted for 
inflation) 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made 
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves amendments 
to navigation regulations and establishment of a safety zones. Normally 
such actions are categorically excluded from further review under 
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A 
preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion 
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the 
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. 
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that 
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or 
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, 
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment 
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If 
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which 
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or 
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal 
Docket Management System in the March 24,

[[Page 18727]]

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, 
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's 
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up 
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a 
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.901 to read as follows:


Sec.  [thinsp]165.901  Great Lakes--regulated navigation areas and 
safety zones.

    (a) The following are regulated navigation areas:
    (1) Lake Huron. (i) The waters of Lake Huron known as South Channel 
between Bois Blanc Island and Cheboygan, Michigan; bounded by a line 
north from Cheyboygan Crib Light (LL-1340) at 45[deg]39'48'' N., 
84[deg]27'36'' W.; to Bois Blanc Island at 45[deg]43'42'' N., 
84[deg]27'36'' W.; and a line north from the mainland at 45[deg]43'00'' 
N., 84[deg]35'30'' W.; to the western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at 
45[deg]48'42'' N., 84[deg]35'30'' W.
    (ii) The waters of Lake Huron between Mackinac Island and St. 
Ignace, Michigan, bounded by a line east from position 45[deg]52'12'' 
N., 84[deg]43'00'' W.; to Mackinac Island at 45[deg]52'12'' N., 
84[deg]39'00'' W.; and a line east from the mainland at 45[deg]53'12'' 
N., 84[deg]43'30'' W.; to the northern tangent of Mackinac Island at 
45[deg]53'12'' N., 84[deg]38'48'' W.
    (2) Lake Michigan. (i) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Gray's 
Reef Passage bounded by a line from Gray's Reef Light (LL-2006) at 
45[deg]46'00'' N., 85[deg]09'12'' W.; to White Shoals Light (LL-2003) 
at 45[deg]50'30'' N., 85[deg]08'06'' W.; to a point at 45[deg]49'12'' 
N., 85[deg]04'48'' W.; then to a point at 45[deg]45'42'' N., 
85[deg]08'42'' W.; then to the point of beginning.
    (ii) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Green Bay from Rock 
Island Passage or Porte Des Morts Passage north to Escanaba Light at 
45[deg]44'48'' N., 087[deg]02'14'' W.; south to the Fox River Entrance 
at 44[deg]32'22'' N., 088[deg]00'19'' W., to the Sturgeon Bay Ship 
Canal from Sherwood Point Light at 44[deg]53'34'' N., 087[deg]26'00'' 
W.; to Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal Light at 44[deg]47'42'' N., 
087[deg]18'48'' W.; and then to the point of beginning.
    (b) Regulations. (1) In the RNAs under paragraph (a) of this 
section, the District Commander or respective COTP may issue orders to 
control vessel traffic for reasons which include but are not limited 
to: Channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather 
conditions, or unusual water levels. Prior to issuing these orders, the 
District Commander or respective COTP will provide advance notice as 
reasonably practicable under the circumstances. The respective COTP may 
close and open these regulated navigation areas as ice conditions 
dictate.
    (2) Prior to the closing or opening of the regulated navigation 
areas, the COTP will give interested parties, including both shipping 
interests and island residents, not less than 72 hours notice of the 
action. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, 
Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print 
and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. No vessel 
may navigate in a regulated navigation area which has been closed by 
the COTP. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. The District 
Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to authorize 
vessels to operate outside of issued orders.
    (c) The following are safety zones:
    (1) Lake Erie. The area known as the Lake Erie Islands which is 
defined as the U.S. waters of Lake Erie at the intersection of the 
International Border at 082[deg]55'00'' W., following the International 
Border eastward to the intersection of the International Border at 
082[deg]35'00'' W., moving straight south to position 41[deg]25'00'' 
N., 082[deg]35'00'' W., continuing west to position 41[deg]25'00'' N., 
082[deg]55'00'' W., and ending north at the International Border and 
082[deg]55'00'' W.
    (2) Lake Huron. The waters of Lake Huron known as Saginaw Bay, 
Michigan; bounded by a line from Port Austin Reef Light (LL-10275) at 
44[deg]04'55'' N., 082[deg]58'57'' W.; to Tawas Light (LL-11240) at 
44[deg]15'13'' N., 083[deg]26'58'' W.; to Saginaw Bay Range Front Light 
(LL-10550) at 43[deg]38'54'' N., 083[deg]51'06'' W.; then to the point 
of beginning.
    (d) Enforcement. (1) The District Commander or respective Captain 
of the Port (COTP) will enforce these safety zones as ice conditions 
dictate. Under normal seasonal conditions, only one closing each winter 
and one opening each spring are anticipated.
    (2) Prior to closing or opening these safety zones, the District 
Commander or respective COTP will give the public advance notice, not 
less than 72 hours prior to the closure. This notice will be given 
through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and 
press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP 
will ensure widest dissemination. The general regulations in 33 CFR 
165.23 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the 
discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone 
under certain circumstances.

    Dated: April 10, 2017.
J.E. Ryan,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-08132 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P