17246 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

of the CFR, how prevalent are electronic 

chart display systems within the vessel 

class with which you are 

knowledgeable? For example, in your 

vessel class or industry, would you 

consider electronic chart display 

systems to be very uncommon, 

uncommon, somewhat common, 

common, or very common? For 

reference, the Coast Guard will attempt 

to quantify non-numerical responses to 

questions for the purposes of an 

economic analysis. We will consider 

‘‘very uncommon’’ to represent an 

adoption rate of 20 percent or less; 

‘‘uncommon’’ to represent an adoption 

rate between 20 and 40 percent; 

‘‘somewhat common’’ to represent an 

adoption rate between 40 and 60 

percent; ‘‘common’’ to represent an 

adoption rate between 60 and 80 

percent; and ‘‘very common’’ to 

represent an adoption rate of 80 percent 

or greater. For us to better understand 

the context of your response, please 

provide the particular area of the 

maritime industry or vessel class that 

your estimate is for, and the basis for 

that estimate. 

Question 12a. If your vessel lacks the 

navigational equipment necessary to use 

and display ENC charts, what is your 

vessel type, what equipment are you 

currently lacking, and what would be 

the estimated cost of procuring and 

installing this equipment? Please let us 

know who would procure and set up the 

equipment, and provide an estimate for 

how long these processes would take. 

Will your company be able to use 

existing vessel or shoreside 

maintenance personnel, or will an 

outside marine electrician contractor or 

other technician have to be hired? Are 

there situations where retrofitting a 

vessel with such equipment may not be 

possible? If so, why and what vessel 

type? 

Question 12b. If the additional ENC 

equipment would require updates to 

your vessel’s electrical system, please 

provide an estimate of the expected 

costs to the vessel owner. If you cannot 

provide a cost estimate, what type of 

technician would perform the update to 

the electrical system and how long do 

you estimate that would take? Would 

the vessel need to be docked or out of 

service for any of the modifications 

described in this question? If so, for how 

long? Please indicate the type of vessel 

in your response. 

Question 13. How many hours per 

month do you currently spend updating 

paper charts? What are the costs of 

maintaining a corrected chart portfolio? 

How often do you replace paper charts? 

If you or your company make the 

updates internally who is in charge of 

updating them (master, mate, shorebased company employee, etc.)? If you 

contract with a service, how much do 

you pay for the services provided? 

Question 14. What are the ongoing 

costs for the necessary electronic chart 

display system software, such as a 

charting application or subscription 

service? How often are technicians 

required to maintain or service the ECS 

and how much does this service cost? 

How often do you anticipate replacing 

or upgrading an electronic chart display 

system and what is the estimated cost to 

replace or upgrade it? 

Question 15. If the Coast Guard were 

to propose electronic chart and 

navigational equipment carriage 

requirements, what persons, entities, or 

organizations would be positively or 

negatively impacted? For example, a 

positive impact may include instances 

where an individual, vessel owner, or 

company may experience cost savings 

from time saved by no longer manually 

updating charts or an increase in 

revenue from selling electronic chart 

display systems or software, while a 

negative impact may result from an 

individual, vessel owner, or company 

taking on additional equipment costs to 

be in compliance. 

Question 16. Are there additional 

measures that should be considered to 

relieve an economic burden if the Coast 

Guard were to issue a rule to establish 

electronic chart and navigational 

equipment carriage requirements? What 

would you consider to be the expected 

costs and associated benefits of the 

additional measures? Please provide the 

data and calculations for the 

determination of such costs and/or 

benefits. 

Question 17. Because of the 

similarities between an RTCM Class 

‘‘A’’ ECS and an ECDIS, NVIC 1–16 

(Change 2) encourages mariners 

operating an RTCM Class ‘‘A’’ ECS to 

complete Coast Guard approved ECDIS 

training. For all other mariners 

operating other ECS systems NVIC 01– 

16 (Change 2) identifies training topics 

for mariner familiarization. Is a Coast 

Guard approved ECDIS course 

appropriate training for mariners on 

vessels equipped with ECS? Should ECS 

specific training be required for officers 

in charge of a navigational watch on 

vessels equipped with ECS? What 

would you consider to be the estimated 

costs for such training? 

Dated: March 23, 2022. 

J.W. Mauger, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06416 Filed 3–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[USCG–2022–0064] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Blue Angels at Kaneohe 

Bay Air Show; Oahu, HI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a temporary safety zone 

while the U.S. Navy Blue Angels 

Squadron conducts aerobatic 

performances over Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, 

Hawaii, from 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 

p.m., August 12–14, 2022. This safety 

zone is necessary to protect watercraft 

and the general public from hazards 

associated with the U.S. Navy Blue 

Angels aircraft low flying, high powered 

jet aerobatics over open waters. Vessels 

desiring to transit through the zone can 

request permission by contacting the 

Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) or 

his designated representative. We invite 

your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before April 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0064 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

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 about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty 

Officer Bradley Lindsey, Waterways 

Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector Honolulu; telephone (808) 541– 

4363, email Bradley.w.lindsey@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 January 27, 2022, Kaneohe Bay Air 

Show 2022 coordinators informed the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17247 

U.S. Coast Guard of a State of Hawaii 

approved Air Show plan that include an 

aerial performance ‘‘show box’’ 

extending beyond the Kaneohe Bay 

Naval Defensive Sea Area as established 

by Executive Order 8681 of February 14, 

1941. Within this ‘‘show box,’’ the U.S. 

Navy Blue Angels Squadron will 

conduct aerobatic performances, 

exhibiting their aircraft’s maximum 

performance capabilities, over Kaneohe 

Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, during a 3-day 

period. Taking into account the hazards 

associated within this ‘‘show box’’ 

during the Squadron’s high powered 

multiple jet aircraft performances, and 

that Kaneohe Bay normally experiences 

heavy waterway traffic during the 

weekends, the COTP determined that a 

safety zone for the portions of the ‘‘show 

box’’ that extend beyond the Kaneohe 

Bay Naval Defensive Sea would be 

appropriate to ensure the safety of all 

watercraft and the general public during 

the Blue Angels’ performances. The 

Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP proposes to establish a 

temporary safety zone while the U.S. 

Navy Blue Angels Squadron conducts 

aerobatic performances over Kaneohe 

Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, from 9:00 a.m. 

through 5:00 p.m., August 12–14, 2022. 

This safety zone would encompass a 

small area of the Kaneohe Bay Naval 

Defensive Sea Area, including an area 

that extends approximately 200 yards 

northeast and 1000 yards southwest of 

the Naval Defensive Sea Area and is 

bound by the following points: 

21°26.159′ N, 157°47.312′ W; then south 

to 21°25.890′ N, 157°47.250′ W; then 

northeast to 21°27.943′ N, 157°44.953′ 

W; then west to 21°28.016′ N, 

157°45.250′ W; and returning southwest 

to the starting point. This safety zone 

will extend from the surface of the water 

to the ocean floor. These safety zones 

are necessary to protect watercraft and 

the general public from hazards 

associated with the U.S. Navy Blue 

Angels aircraft low flying, high powered 

jet aerobatics over open waters. Vessels 

requiring emergency transit through the 

zone may request permission by 

contacting the on scene Patrol 

Commander on VHF channel 16 

(156.800 MHz) or the Honolulu Captain 

of the Port at telephone number 808– 

842–2600. 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 and 13563 

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. 

This NPRM has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, and 

duration of the safety zone. Vessels will 

be able to transit in the temporary safety 

zones with permission from the 

Honolulu COTP or his designated 

representative and transit around the 

zone freely. 

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. 

Vessels will be allowed to transit in 

and around the temporary safety zones 

in Kaneohe Bay once permission to 

enter is granted. 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. Before the 

effective period, we will issue maritime 

advisories widely available to the Oahu 

maritime and tourist communities. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed 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 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call or email 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 call or email 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 

potential effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17248 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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 a safety zone that extends 

the Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea 

Area on both ends that would prevent 

vessels from entering the fight paths for 

the Air Show. Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L60(a) of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A 

preliminary Record of Environmental 

Consideration supporting this 

determination is available in the docket. 

For instructions on locating the docket, 

see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 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 call or email 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. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2022–0064 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

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 is proposing 

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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T14–0064 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T14–0064 Safety Zone; Blue Angels 

at Kaneohe Bay Air Show, Oahu, Hawaii. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters contained within 

an area composing of one box on 

Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area 

as established by Executive Order 8681 

of February 14, 1941, in Kaneohe Bay, 

Oahu, Hawaii. This safety zone extends 

approximately 200 yards northeast and 

1000 yards southwest of the Naval 

Defensive Sea Area and is bound by the 

following points: 21°26.159′ N, 

157°47.312′ W; then south to 21°25.890′ 

N, 157°47.250′ W; then northeast to 

21°27.943′ N, 157°44.953′ W; then west 

to 21°28.016′ N, 157°45.250′ W; and 

returning southwest to the starting 

point. This safety zone extends from the 

surface of the water to the ocean floor. 

These coordinates are based upon the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Coast Survey, Pacific 

Ocean, Oahu, Hawaii, chart 19359 (NAD 

83). 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Honolulu (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative on VHF channel 16 

(156.800 MHz) or the Honolulu Captain 

of the Port at telephone number 808– 

842–2600. Those in the safety zone must 

comply with all lawful orders or 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

the COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced daily between the 

hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., 

August 12–14, 2022. 

Dated: March 21, 2022. 

A.B. Avanni, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Honolulu. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06455 Filed 3–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 220321–0075] 

RIN 0648–BK84 

International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna 

Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for 

Tropical Tuna and Silky Shark in the 

Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2022 and 

Beyond 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1