        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R04-RCRA-2018-0528; FRL- 9985-93-Region 4]
        Mississippi: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Mississippi has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has reviewed Mississippi's application and is proposing to determine that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we are proposing to authorize the State's changes. EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2018-0528, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Leah Davis, Materials and Waste Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number: (404) 562-8562; fax number: (404) 562-9964; email address: davis.leah@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?
        States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
        New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in the states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the states are granted authorization to do so.
        B. What decisions is EPA proposing to make in this rule?
        Mississippi submitted program revision applications, dated September 10, 2014 and June 1, 2018, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2014 (including RCRA Clusters 1

           XV through XXIII). EPA concludes that Mississippi's applications to revise its authorized program meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA proposes to grant Mississippi final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in its authorization applications, and as outlined below in Section F of this document.

            1 A “cluster” is a grouping of hazardous waste rules that EPA promulgates from July 1st of one year to June 30th of the following year.

        Mississippi has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program applications, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.
        C. What is the effect of this proposed authorization decision?
        If Mississippi is authorized for the changes described in Mississippi's authorization applications, these changes will become part of the authorized State hazardous waste program, and therefore will be federally enforceable. Mississippi will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA would retain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
        • Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
        • Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
        • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
        This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which EPA is proposing to authorize Mississippi are already effective, and are not changed by today's proposed action.
        D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

        EPA will evaluate any comments received on this proposed action and will make a final decision on approval or disapproval of Mississippi's proposed authorization. Our decision will be published in the Federal Register. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.
        E. What has Mississippi previously been authorized for?
        Mississippi initially received final authorization on June 13, 1984, effective June 27, 1984 (49 FR 24377), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to Mississippi's program on August 17, 1988, effective October 17, 1988 (53 FR 31000); August 10, 1990, effective October 9, 1990 (55 FR 32624); March 29, 1991, effective May 28, 1991 (56 FR 13079); June 26, 1991, effective August 27, 1991 (56 FR 29589); May 11, 1992, effective July 10, 1992 (57 FR 20056); April 8, 1993, effective June 7, 1993 (58 FR 18162); October 20, 1993, effective December 20, 1993 (58 FR 54044); March 18, 1994, effective May 17, 1994 (59 FR 12857); June 1, 1995, effective July 31, 1995 (60 FR 28539); August 30, 1995, effective October 30, 1995 (60 FR 5718); February 23, 2005, effective April 25, 2005 (70 FR 8731); and August 4, 2008, effective October 3, 2008 (73 FR 45170).
        F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?
        Mississippi submitted program revision applications, dated September 10, 2014 and June 1, 2018, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. The September 10, 2014 application included changes associated with Checklists 2
           206.1, 207.1, 208-215, 217-218, 220, 222-223, and 225-228. All of these Checklists were resubmitted with Mississippi's June 1, 2018 application in response to prior EPA comments. The June 1, 2018 application also included changes associated with Checklists 229-232, as well as the non-checklist technical correction published at 72 FR 35666 (June 29, 2007). EPA proposes to determine, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Mississippi's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA is proposing to authorize Mississippi for the following program changes:

            2 A “checklist” is developed by EPA for each federal rule amending the RCRA regulations. The checklists document the changes made by each federal rule and are presented and numbered in chronological order by date of promulgation.

            Description of Federal requirement

              Federal Register
              date and page

            Analogous Stateauthority 3

            Checklist 206.1, Nonwastewaters from Dyes and Pigments (Correction)
            70 FR 35032, 6/16/05
            R. 1.2.

            Checklist 207.1, Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule (Correction)
            70 FR 35034, 6/16/05
            R. 1.3, 1.7, and 1.11.

            Checklist 208, Methods Innovation Rule and SW-846 Final Update IIIB
            70 FR 34538, 6/14/05, 70 FR 44150, 8/1/05
            R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.11, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, and 1.22.

            Checklist 209, Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Mercury Containing Equipment
            70 FR 45508, 8/5/05
            R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.11, 1.15, 1.16, and 1.21.

            Checklist 210, Standardized Permit for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
            70 FR 53420, 9/8/05
            R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.14, 1.16, and 1.23.

            Checklist 211, Revision of Wastewater Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous Waste Mixtures (“Headworks exemptions”)
            70 FR 57769, 10/4/05
            R. 1.2.

            Checklist 212, NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II)
            70 FR 59402, 10/12/05
            R. 1.1, 1.7, 1.11, 1.13, and 1.16.

            Checklist 213,4 Burden Reduction Initiative
            71 FR 16862, 4/4/06
            R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.11, 1.13, 1.15, and 1.16.

            Checklist 214, Corrections to Errors in the Code of Federal Regulations
            71 FR 40254, 7/14/06
            R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.11, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.21, and 1.22.

            Checklist 215, Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) Rule
            71 FR 42928, 7/28/06
            R. 1.1 and 1.2.

            Checklist 217, NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments
            73 FR 18970, 4/8/08
            R. 1.7 and 1.13.

            Checklist 218, F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes
            73 FR 31756, 6/4/08
            R. 1.2.

            Checklist 220, Academic Laboratories Generator Standards
            73 FR 72912, 12/1/08
            R. 1.2 and 1.3.

            Checklist 222, OECD Requirements; Export Shipment of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries
            75 FR 1236, 1/8/10
            R. 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.11, and 1.13.

            Checklist 223, Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications
            75 FR 12989 3/18/10, 75 FR 31716 6/4/10
            R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.11, 1.13, 1.15, and 1.16.

            Checklist 225, Removal of Saccharin and its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Constituents
            75 FR 78918, 12/17/10
            R. 1.2 and 1.15.

            Checklist 226, Academic Laboratories Generator Standards Technical Corrections
            75 FR 79304, 12/20/10
            R. 1.3.

            Checklist 227, Revision of the Land Disposal Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes
            76 FR 34147, 6/13/11
            R. 1.15.

            Checklist 228, Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications
            77 FR 22229, 4/13/12
            R. 1.2 and 1.13.

            Checklist 229, Conditional Exclusions for Solvent Contaminated Wipes
            78 FR 46448, 7/31/13
            R. 1.1 and 1.2.

            Checklist 230, Conditional Exclusions for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities
            79 FR 350, 1/3/14
            R. 1.1 and 1.2.

            Checklist 231, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Rule
            79 FR 7518, 2/7/14
            R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.11.

            Checklist 232, Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule
            79 FR 36220, 6/26/14
            R. 1.1 and 1.2.

            Non-Checklist Item Technical Correction
            72 FR 35666, 6/29/07
            R. 1.21.

            3 The Mississippi regulatory provisions are from the Mississippi Hazardous Waste Regulations, Title 11, Part 3, Chapter 1, effective November 17, 2017.

            4 The National Environmental Performance Track Program referenced in the Burden Reduction Initiative Rule has been discontinued.

        G. Where are the revised State rules different from the federal rules?
        When revised state rules differ from the federal rules in the RCRA state authorization process, EPA determines whether the state rules are equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the federal program. Pursuant to Section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, state programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than the federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent states from adopting regulations that are broader in scope than the federal program, such regulations cannot be authorized and are not federally enforceable. In its review of the Mississippi regulations submitted as part of the program revision applications that are the subject of this proposed rule, EPA did not find any State regulations to be more stringent or broader in scope than the federal program.
        EPA cannot delegate certain federal requirements associated with the manifest registry system in the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule (Checklist 207) or the operation of the electronic manifest system in the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Rule (Checklist 231). Mississippi has adopted these requirements and appropriately preserved EPA's authority to implement them (see 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 3, Ch. 1, Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.11).

        EPA also cannot delegate the federal requirements associated with international shipments (i.e., import and export provisions) associated with the Cathode Ray Tubes Rule (Checklists 215 and 232) and the OECD Requirements for Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (Checklist 222). Mississippi has adopted these requirements and appropriately preserved EPA's authority to implement them (see 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 3, Ch. 1, Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3).
        H. Who handles permits after the final authorization takes effect?
        Mississippi will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of authorization until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Mississippi is not yet authorized.
        I. How does today's proposed action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Mississippi?
        Mississippi is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State, which includes the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Therefore, this proposed action has no effect on Indian Country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.
        J. What is codification and will EPA codify Mississippi's hazardous waste program as proposed in this rule?
        Codification is the process of placing the state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not proposing to codify the authorization of Mississippi's changes at this time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart Z, for the authorization of Mississippi's program changes at a later date.
        K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action proposes to authorize State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's proposed authorization of Mississippi's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to authorize pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to authorize State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

        Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in proposing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of this action in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). “Burden” is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this action proposes authorization of pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Authority:
           This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

          Dated: September 27, 2018.
          Onis “Trey” Glenn, III,
          Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2018-23580 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2018-0563]
        RIN 1625-AA11
        Regulated Navigation Area; Straits of Mackinac, Mackinaw City, MI

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) for certain waters of the Straits of Mackinac. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and protection of property on these navigable waters near Mackinaw City, MI. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from anchoring or loitering within the RNA unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan or a 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 September 4, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0563 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 about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Jason Radcliffe, Ninth District Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6060, email Jason.A.Radcliffe2@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          RNA Regulated Navigation Area
          COTP Captain of the Port
          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
        The northwest part of Lake Huron forms the approach to, and the east part of the, Straits of Mackinac. At the extreme northwest end, the lake narrows abruptly to a width of 4 miles. Spanning this divide is the Mackinac Bridge. Two main shipping lanes lead north and south of Bois Blanc Island and pass under the bridge. Numerous shoals and several islands obstruct the Straits Area. Located approximately a mile west of the Mackinac Bridge are submerged electrical cables and the Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline. Posted on NOAAs navigation charts are cautionary notes advising mariners of the cable and pipeline area. There is no prohibition nor is there an enforcement mechanism to discourage anchoring in this area. The Captain of the Port (COTP) of Sault Sainte Marie has determined that the high volume of vessel transits and the potential for damage to submerged infrastructure warrants the creation of a regulatory measure to specifically outline an area of regulated navigation that prohibits certain vessels from anchoring or loitering.
        The purpose of this rulemaking is to better enhance the safety of vessels and protection of sub-surface cables and pipelines within the navigable waters of the Straits of Mackinac. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 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.
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        On the behalf of COTP Sector Sault Sainte Marie, the Ninth Coast Guard District proposes the creation of a Regulated Navigation Area that mandates transiting vessels to make a direct passage with no anchoring or loitering, unless expressly granted permission from the COTP or designated representative. Vessels that would be required to comply with this RNA include vessels of 40 meters or more in length, towing vessels of 20 meters or more in length while engaged in towing another vessel, vessels certificated to carry 50 or more passengers for hire, when engaged in trade, or any dredge or floating plant.
        Within the RNA, the District Commander or COTP may establish temporary traffic rules that include but are not limited to channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather conditions, or unusual water levels. This proposed rule will ensure transiting mariners are fully aware of existing and emergent hazards to navigation on or below the navigable waterways and provide the Coast Guard with greater situational awareness and oversight. 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
        This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that no part of this proposed rulemaking and its stipulations will require any additional equipment purchases or create an undue burden to marine operations. This proposed rule will increase communication and situational awareness of the specified area.
        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 Regulated Navigation Area 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. The majority of this proposed rule applies to vessels typically larger than those operated by small entities. The size and operational applicability of this proposed rule is found at the end of this document.

        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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 creating a permanent Regulated Navigation Area detailing how mariners shall transit through the Straits of Mackinac. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is 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, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

        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 website'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. Add § 165.944 above the heading “Eleventh Coast Guard District” to read as follows:

          § 165.944
           Regulated Navigation Area; Straits of Mackinac.
          (a) Location. All navigable waters of the Straits of Mackinac bounded by longitude 084°20′ W and 085°10′ W, including Grays Reef Passage, the South Channel between Bois Blanc Island and Cheboygan, MI, and the waters between Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, MI.
          (b) Applicability. Unless otherwise stated, the provisions of this RNA apply to the following vessels:
          (1) Vessels of 40 meters (approx. 131 feet) or more in length, while navigating;

          (2) Towing vessels of 20 meters (approx. 65 feet) or more in length, while engaged in towing another vessel astern, alongside or by pushing ahead; or

          (3) Vessels certificated to carry 50 or more passengers for hire, when engaged in trade; or
          (4) Each dredge or floating plant.
          (c) Regulations. The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.10, 165.11, and 165.13 apply within this RNA.

          (1) Nothing in this regulation relieves any vessel, owner, operator, charterer, master, or person directing the movement of a vessel, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with this part or any other applicable law or regulation. (i.e., the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) or the Inland Navigation Rules) or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
          (2) Vessels transiting in the RNA must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP, or a designated representative. The “designated representative” of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who designated by the COTP to act on their behalf. The designated representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel; or other designated craft; or on shore and communicating via VHF-16 or telephone 906-635-3319.
          (3) Vessels transiting through the RNA must make a direct passage. No vessel may anchor or loiter within the RNA at any time without the expressed permission of the COTP or a designated representative.
          (4) Vessels desiring to anchor within the confines of the RNA must contact the COTP or a designated representative one (1) hour in advance of anchoring via VHF-16 or telephone 906-635-3319. The person directing the movement of the vessel desiring to anchor will provide the time and purpose for anchoring, plus the anchoring location. Vessels getting underway from anchor will notify the COTP or a designated representative no less than 15 minutes prior to sailing via VHF-16 or telephone 906-635-3319.
          (5) The owner, operator, charterer, master or person directing the movement of a vessel desiring to loiter within the prescribed RNA for the purposes of work, dredging, or survey must receive permission from the COTP or a designated representative a minimum of 72 hours in advance of the desired activity.
          (6) In the RNA, the District Commander or COTP may establish temporary traffic rules for reasons that include but are not limited to channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather conditions, or unusual water levels.
          (7) There may be times that the Ninth District Commander or the COTP finds it necessary to close the RNA to vessel traffic. During times of limited closure, persons and vessels may request permission to enter the RNA by contacting the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-16 or telephone 906-635-3319.
          (d) Definitions. As used in this RNA:
          (1) Captain of the Port means the United States Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) of Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
          (2) Straits of Mackinac means the navigable waters of the Great Lakes connecting Lake Huron to Lake Michigan passing between the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan.
          (e) Notification. The Coast Guard will rely on the methods described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the public of the time and duration of any closure of the RNA. Reports of violations of this RNA should go to COTP Sault Sainte Marie at 906-635-3319 or on VHF-Channel 16.
          (f) Waiver. For any vessel, the COTP or a designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety.

          Dated: July 27, 2018.
          J.M. Nunan,
          Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 2018-16549 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P