[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 249 (Thursday, December 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67971-67975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32836]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165

[CGD0-96-017]
Rin AE2115-AE46


Prevention of Collisions Between Commercial and Recreational 
Vessels in the South Passage of the Lake Erie Western Basin

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is considering a number of options for 
improvement of navigational safety in an area known as the ``South 
Passage'' in the Western Basin of Lake Erie. This is a high traffic 
area used by both commercial and recreational vessels. Collisions 
between commercial and recreational vessels in this area, with loss of 
lives in one case, have given the Coast Guard cause for concern about 
the long-term safety of the South Passage. The Coast Guard therefore 
requests public comment on the appropriateness and practicality of 
various options, some of which include possible regulatory action, to 
better protect both commercial and recreational vessels from risk of 
collision in this area. The Coast Guard is providing an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking because comments on a range of various options 
are desired.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and supporting materials should be mailed or 
delivered to Lieutenant Commander Rhae Giacoma, Assistant Chief, Marine 
Safety Analysis and Policy Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, Room 
2069, 1240 E. Ninth Coast Guard District, Room 2069, 1240 E. Ninth 
Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44199-2060. Please reference the name of the 
proposal and the docket number in the heading above. If you wish 
receipt of your mailed comments to be acknowledged, please include a 
stamped self-addressed envelope or postcard for that purpose. Comments 
and materials received will be available for public inspection at the 
above location from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Lieutenant Commander Rhae Giacoma, Assistant Chief, Marine Safety 
Analysis and Policy Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, Room 2069, 1240 
E. Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44199-2060, (216) 522-3994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments.

    The Coast Guard Strongly encourages all interested parties to 
participate in this consideration of possible rulemaking by submitting 
written comments which may consist of data, views, arguments, or other 
proposals for or against the various options being considered. The 
Coast Guard is presenting options for a regulated navigation area as 
one approach for resolving the apparent waterway user conflict in the 
South Passage area of Western Lake Erie. Proposals for non-regulatory 
alternatives which would serve the same purpose of enhancing vessel 
safety in the area are also desired. Although all comments will be 
considered, interested parties are requested to specifically identify 
which of the detailed options they are commenting on, the basis for 
their objection to proposals they dislike, and what alternative option 
(including the option of no action) they do support.
    The Coast Guard does not currently plan to have a public hearing. 
The Coast Guard sponsored a number of informal workshops which were 
open to all interested parties and which provided an informative airing 
of views. At this point, the Coast Guard is more in need of specific, 
written, and concrete comments. However, further consideration will be 
given to holding a formal public hearing if one is requested. Such a 
request should indicate how a public hearing would contribute 
substantial information or views which cannot be received in written 
form. If it appears that a public hearing would substantially 
contribute to this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will announce such a 
hearing by a later notice in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard will 
consider all comments received before the closing date indicated above, 
and may amend or revoke this proposal in response to such comments.

Background and Purpose

I. The South Passage

    The South Passage is an area of water on the United States side of 
the Western Basin of Lake Erie, roughly 9 by 4 statute miles, bounded 
by Kelleys Island and South Bass Island on the north, and by Catawba 
Island and Point Marblehead on the south. The South Passage is one of 
two traditional, natural passages through the islands and shallows 
separating the Western and Central Basins of Lake Erie, the other being 
the Pelee Passage to the north on the Canadian side of the Western 
basin. At one time, between 1952 and 1974, it appears that the South 
Passage was a regular route for large commercial carriers. Since that 
time, Pelee Passage to the north in Canadian waters has become the 
preferred route for large commercial vessels transiting through the 
Western End of Lake Erie. There is still a wide array of both 
commercial and recreational traffic using some parts of the South 
Passage, including some large commercial carriers transiting in and out 
of the Marblehead area on the east side, barges and tow boats in 
transit both through and across the passage, regular ferry boats 
transiting across the passage, commercial excursion vessels, transiting 
recreational crafts, and recreational fishing vessels. In additional to 
being a natural passage in and out of the basin and a natural area of 
transit between the mainland and the islands, the South Passage is also 
a desirable fishing ground where a relatively heavy concentration of 
small recreational fishing vessels anchor or drift.

II. Accidents in the South Passage

    Three collisions between commercial barges in tow and small 
recreational craft have occurred in the South Passage

[[Page 67972]]

during the last five years, one of which resulted in two deaths. (1) On 
May 1, 1992, a tug with a barge in tow collided with a recreational 
bass boat in the east end of the South Passage, off the Marblehead and 
Lakeside area. The bass boat was anchored, the occupants engaged in 
fishing. There was minor injury to one of the occupants of the bass 
boat. The Coast Guard took administrative actions against the license 
of the master of the tug. (2) On October 1, 1994, a tug and barge 
collided with a recreational motorboat in the west end of the South 
Passage, slightly to the east of the channel marked by the Starve 
Island Reef Red #2 buoy and the Scott Point shoal Green #1 buoy. The 
motorboat was anchored or dragging anchor (until shortly before the 
collision, when the occupants apparently attempted to raise anchor), 
the occupants engaged in fishing. Two of the four occupants of the 
motorboat died by drowning after jumping from the boat just before 
collision, and the other two occupants suffered minor injuries. The 
State of Ohio convicted the master of the tug of a misdemeanor and the 
Coast Guard has filed charges against the licenses of both the master 
and the operator of the tug. (The licensing action is still in 
adjudication.) the Coast Guard also required the owners of the tug and 
barge to make structural changes improving the visibility from the 
bridge. (3) On June 13, 1995,a tug with a crane barge in tow collided 
with a recreational motorboat in the east end of the South Passage, 
approximately one mile northeast of Marblehead light. The one occupant 
of the motorboat was ``drift fishing.'' No one was injured in the 
collision. The State of Ohio convicted the operator of the motorboat of 
a minor misdemeanor and the Coast Guard took administrative action 
against the license of the operator of the tug. The Coast Guard also 
required the owners of the crane barge to insure that visibility was 
not obstructed by the crane.
    Although this is not a large number of accidents over a five-year 
period, the similarity of the events and the inherent dangerousness of 
collisions between barges and small boats, tragically demonstrated by 
the two deaths which have occurred, prompted the Coast Guard to conduct 
a special study of the South Passage in order to determine if there is 
a systemic problem which should be addressed. The Coast Guard and the 
State of Ohio have used administrative and criminal procedures to hold 
individuals (both commercial and recreational vessel operators) 
accountable in these cases. Although fault may be appropriately 
assigned to individuals for their failure to keep a proper lookout and 
exercise due care to avoid collisions in accordance with the principles 
of good seamanship, this does not negate the possibility that there are 
systemic problems creating an unusual risk of collision. The purpose of 
this study is to address those systemic problems. All three collisions 
occurred between tug/barge combinations and boats engaged in fishing. 
In one case the recreational boat was anchored, in another it was 
clearly drifting, and in one case it is uncertain whether it was at 
anchor or adrift at the time. In two cases it does not appear that the 
recreational boats were in clearly defined channels. In one case, the 
1994 case which resulted in the deaths, the collision occurred in a 
channel clearly marked by red and green lateral buoys (Reef Red #2 buoy 
and Scott Point Shoal Green #1 buoy), although it is a matter very much 
in controversy as to whether or not this constituted a ``narrow 
channel'' as that term is used in the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 
1980 (33 U.S.C. Secs.  2001 et seq., especially Rule 9, 33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2009). Whether or not that was a ``narrow channel'' at the time 
(which is not a matter to be determined in this forum), the detailed 
investigation of that case conducted by the Coast Guard did provide 
some indication of a systemic conflict between recreational and 
commercial traffic in the South Passage. As the tug and barge 
approached the west end of the passage, they navigated between two 
large concentrations of boats north and south of the west end. As they 
actually entered the navigational channel market by Starve Island Reef 
Red #2 Buoy on the north and Scott Point Shoal Green #1 Buoy on the 
South, they found themselves between two packs of 15 or so boats, one 
clustered around each of the buoys. The recreational vessel that they 
hit was on the northeast side of the pack around the southern buoy, 
apparently quite close to the middle of the navigational channel. Given 
the inherent limits on the maneuverability of barges in tow, it appears 
that this was a dangerous situation in the making.

III. Consultation With the Marine Community

    The Coast Guard solicited information and opinion from a variety of 
groups in order to obtain a better appreciation of the South Passage 
and develop ideas for possible improvements in navigational safety. 
This was an effort to fulfill the spirit of the President's 
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' (Presidential Memorandum of March 
4, 1995), in which President Clinton urged Federal agencies to work 
with the local people affected by regulatory actions in order to 
achieve a consensus on reasonable solutions whenever possible. Those 
invited to provide input on the South Passage included tow boat 
operators, commercial carriers, commercial passenger vessel operators, 
recreational boating and fishing associations, a professional mariner 
association and individual mariners, along with representatives of the 
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the City of Toledo, and the U.S. 
Coast Guard Auxiliary. Five informal workgroup sessions were held. The 
discussions were informal, wide-ranging, sometimes adversarial, and 
less informative than hoped. Many of the issues discussed were highly 
controversial, and there was little consensus on any point except the 
importance of continuing and enhancing existing programs for education 
of recreational boaters. There was controversy about whether or not 
there is a particular problem with conflicts between recreational and 
commercial vessels in the South Passage, with very different, sometimes 
inconsistent statements being made during the course of the informal 
discussions. There clearly are a large number of small boats anchored 
or drifting in various areas around the passage during summer months. 
However, some participants argued that there is no real problem with 
``congestion'' or conflicting use as such. Other participants in the 
discussions described some dangerous situations, including near-misses 
between recreational and commercial vessels. There were comments about 
the dangerousness of recreational boaters anchoring or drifting in 
commercial channels, and, conversely, about the dangerousness of barge 
operators who seem to expect boats to give way as a matter of course. 
Some participants also expressed concern about boats sometimes blocking 
the approaches to the ferries running across the passage.
    Because the characterization of the passage as ``congested'' has 
been controversial (the President of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing 
Council has found this term particularly objectionable), several points 
about the use of that term should be clarified. First, it is a relative 
matter, having more to do with particular, localized concentrations of 
boats in navigational channels rather than a question of overall 
density in the passage. Clusters of ten to twenty boats gathered off 
points or gathered around a buoy, as is common even on weekdays during 
the summer in the passage, can constitute ``congestion'' even though

[[Page 67973]]

there may be no more than a few hundred boats out in the passage in 
total and there are large sections of the passage which are clear that 
day. Second, ``congestion'' is very relative to the point of view of 
the mariner in question. The same situation may appear completely 
uncongested to a recreational boater with freedom to maneuver in any of 
the large empty spaces of water remaining outside the clusters, and yet 
appear most definitely congested to the commercial operator forced to 
pass very close to one of those clusters because of limited scope for 
maneuver. Finally, the use of the term ``congestion'' by 
representatives of the Coast Guard in the workgroup discussions should 
not have been interpreted as expressing any idea that the South Passage 
has too much recreational traffic. To the contrary, the Coast Guard 
views the South Passage as an extremely valuable resource, important to 
recreation and tourism, which should be fully enjoyed by all. Any 
adjustments to navigational practices which may help protect the safety 
of recreational boaters using the passage should serve to encourage 
rather than discourage continued and expanded use of the passage for 
fishing and other recreation.
    There was considerable dispute about the relative fault between 
recreational and commercial operators, and an intense controversy about 
whether the channel between the two buoys which was the site of the 
fatalities on October 1, 1994 was or was not a ``narrow channel'' 
subject to Rule 9 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act (which requires 
a small vessel to avoid impeding a vessel which cannot safely navigate 
outside the narrow channel). And there were widely differing opinions 
about the appropriateness of area-specific navigational regulations, 
some arguing that a few clear, geographic delineations would greatly 
enhance safety, others arguing that any regulations beyond the general 
navigational rules are unnecessary.
    Although the workgroup discussions certainly assisted the Coast 
Guard in delineating issues, it is important for the Coast Guard to now 
be able to consider written and attributable comments on specific 
proposals. Also, it is important for the Coast Guard to make sure that 
any decision be based on comments from all concerned parties, solicited 
on an equal basis, whether or not they had an opportunity to personally 
participate in the workgroup sessions.

IV. Working Propositions

    In framing the regulatory options presented here, the Coast Guard 
is proceeding on the basis of the following propositions, which are 
subject to dispute:
    1. There is an obvious danger created when small boats are at 
anchor or adrift in an area used by a large commercial vessel, 
particularly if the occupants of the small boats are occupied in 
fishing and the commercial vessels are restricted in their visibility 
and maneuverability.
    2. Recreational and commercial vessels have a right to make use of 
the South Passage, neither taking absolute priority over the other, but 
some regulatory adjustment may be necessary in order to insure than 
both can do so safety. Although Pelee Passage is now the primary route 
for large commercial traffic transiting Lake Erie, it is important not 
to lose the availability of the South Passage (the only passage in 
United States waters) for commercial traffic. At the same time, 
recreational use of the islands and fishing grounds in the South 
Passage area is likely to increase, and should not be impeded.
    3. Any local rules promulgated for a particular area such as the 
South Passage should be consistent with the general statutory rules for 
navigation. Those general statutory rules obligate one vessel not to 
impede the passage of another. Section 15 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 
(33 U.S.C. 409) provides that ``It shall not be lawful to tie up or 
anchor vessels * * * in navigable channels in such a manner as to 
prevent or obstruct the passage of other vessels. * * *'' and Rule 9(b) 
of the Inland Navigational Rules (33 U.S.C. Sec. 2009(b)) provides that 
``A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall 
not impede the passage of a vessel than can safely navigate only within 
a narrow channel or fairway.''
    4. The general statutory provisions quoted above do not provide 
unambiguous guidance in some of these dangerous cases involving 
commercial and recreational vessels. It is a case by case determination 
(and certainly a matter of dispute, as evidenced by the discussions 
which took place in the workgroups) as to whether a particular vessel 
at anchor is obstructing another or whether any one of dozens of 
identifiable channels in the South Passage are ``narrow channels.'' It 
is difficult for an operator of a small recreational boat to know, in 
fact, whether or not the small vessel is obstructing a large commercial 
vessel which may or may not be restricted in its ability to maneuver. 
The recreational operators are usually not familiar with the drafts, 
stopping distances, and visibility limitations of large commercial 
vessels, particularly barges in tow. A small boat which is not an 
obstruction one day when there are few other vessels in a wide channel 
may well be an obstruction another day when the whole channel is more 
congested. In the absence of radio communications among the 
recreational vessels, and between the recreational and commercial 
vessels. it is difficult for the operators of the recreational vessels 
to know if they are in violation of these statutory provisions.
    5. Other governmental actions of a more general and comprehensive 
nature may be of relevance in addressing this sort of problem on a 
nationwide basis. Those include (as suggested during the workgroup 
discussions), amendments to the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980, 
more extensive Coast Guard regulation of towing vessels (including 
visibility standards on all sizes of barge and tow combinations), new 
equipment requirements for recreational boats (such as radar 
reflectors, anchor balls, or radios), and licensing of recreational 
vessel operators. However, these proposals are outside the authority of 
the Commander of the Ninth Coast Guard District and cannot be expected 
to provide any improvement in the navigational safety in the South 
Passage in the foreseeable future. The Ninth District has already 
specified visibility requirements for some tug and barge combinations 
subject to Coast Guard inspection (including the one involved in the 
fatal collision on October 1, 1994). The Commander of the Ninth Coast 
Guard District is certainly prepared to submit a proposal for changes 
in the navigation rules to the Commandant of the Coast Guard if it 
appears that such a proposal would enhance safety and be appropriate on 
a nationwide basis. However, it is not apparent what change in the 
language of Rule 9 would as a practical matter better define a ``narrow 
channel'' in all the circumstances to which that would apply around the 
nation. At this point (although any written proposal will be read with 
interest), it seems more useful to address particular problem areas on 
a case by case basis, taking into account the particular configuration 
of the waterway and the traffic in the local area.

V. Options Under Consideration

    The Coast Guard invites comments on any or all of the following 
options, and requests that commentors specifically identify the options 
they are arguing for or against (although comments making arguments in 
favor of options not listed here will also be considered):
    Option 1. Do nothing. The existing accident rate would be deemed

[[Page 67974]]

unfortunate but tolerable, perhaps unavoidable. It may be noted that 
there have been no similar accidents during the 1993 or 1996 navigation 
seasons, although it should also be noted that neither the Coast Guard 
nor the State of Ohio has a system for recording and investigating 
near-misses which may occur on a more frequent basis. On the other 
hand, it may be argued that the congestion and dangerousness of the 
system is only likely to increase in the future.
    Option 2. Emphasize enforcement and education. Make no changes in 
the South Passage navigational system, but put more resources into 
enforcement and educational efforts. The Coast Guard would continue 
with existing enforcement and education in cooperation with the Ohio 
Department of Natural Resources, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Power 
Squadron, boating groups, and maritime industry, as resources allow. 
Particular focus can be put on insuring high standards of 
professionalism among licensed commercial operators and educating 
recreational boaters about the dangers inherent in anchoring or 
drifting in commercial channels. However, Coast Guard resources 
available for more on the water enforcement or more educational 
outreach are limited, perhaps declining. Moreover, while operators can 
be told of the danger and reminded of their obligation to always 
maintain a good lookout, it is not clear how either enforcement or 
education can be effective in convincing small boats not to anchor or 
drift in front of channels needed by commercial vessels in the absence 
of some unambiguous legal rule prohibiting it.
    Option 3. Make nonregulatory changes to the navigational system in 
the South Passage. The Coast Guard could request that the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration add some special delineations 
and notes to the nautical charts, marking the areas most commonly used 
by commercial vessels and warning small vessels that these areas may be 
dangerous for anchoring or drifting. (The areas delineated in the text 
of the regulatory alternatives proposed here may be taken as examples 
of lanes or danger areas which could also be delineated on a 
nonregulatory basis.) However, this may only create more confusion. 
Would such a marking create a ``narrow channel'' under Rule 9 or an 
``obstruction'' under the Rivers and Harbors Act? Would a boater be 
guilty of ``negligent operation'' under Federal and State law for 
failing to heed the ``nonregulatory'' warning? Would it depend on 
whether or not a commercial vessel was operating in the warning area at 
the time? Special warning buoys could also be established by the Coast 
Guard. However, this would tend to create the same confusion about 
legal effect, and would be a drain on limited resources available to 
maintain aids to navigation in the Great Lakes.
    Option 4. Establish regulated navigation areas in the South 
Passage. There is a wide variety of special rules which could be 
established to help avoid collisions. The regulatory options currently 
under consideration include the following permutations (and others will 
be considered if proposed by commentors). All mariners are invited to 
comment on the likely effectiveness of these proposals in protecting 
against the danger of collision. Operators of recreational boats, 
fishers, and others who have an economic interest in recreational or 
fishing activity in the area, are specifically requested to comment on 
any cost associated with these limited restrictions on anchoring and 
drifting.
    Option 4-A. Designated no-anchor and no-drift lanes. These are 
narrow lanes for the routes most heavily used by commercial traffic, 
including (1) the channel between Starve Island Reef and Scott Point 
Shoal, (2) the approach to the commercial docks on the west side of 
Kelleys Island, (3) the approach to the commercial docks at Marblehead, 
and (4) the established ferry routes across the passage, between South 
Bass Island and Scott Point, and between the south side of Kelleys 
Island and Marblehead. Within these lanes, vessels of any size would be 
prohibited from either anchoring or drifting, but would be allowed to 
navigate in any manner otherwise allowed by the navigation rules as 
long as not anchored or adrift. A permutation on the theme might be to 
provide that a vessel would not be prohibited from anchoring or 
drifting in these lanes if the operator of the vessel is monitoring a 
marine radio on channel 16 so as to be available to be effectively 
hailed by an approaching commercial vessel.
    This is the most restrictive regulatory option being considered. 
Under this option, the area marked off for no anchoring or drifting 
would be approximately 13% of the total area of the South Passage. 
Other forms of navigation would not be restricted. It may be noted that 
the proposed lanes are near to, but not at the specific points where 
the three collisions discussed above occurred. The purpose of the lanes 
is to provide the most logical routing possible, to and from points of 
commercial activity, which are as far as possible away from the 
shallower areas favored for fishing.
    Draft Regulatory Text, Option 4-A:


Sec. 165.905  South Passage of Western Lake Erie--regulated navigation 
areas.

    (a) Locations. The following navigational lanes in the South 
Passage of Western Lake Erie are regulated navigation areas:
    (1) South Passage Transit Lane: an area 150 yards to either side 
of a line (approximately 8\3/4\ statute miles long) running 
northwesterly (302 deg. T) from a point at 41 deg.33'30'' N, 
82 deg.42'43'' W on the east end of South Passage to a point at 
41 deg.37'30'' N, 82 deg.51'16'' W on the west end of South Passage.
    (2) Kellstone Lane: an area 150 yards to either side of a line 
(approximately 2\7/8\ statute miles long) running southwesterly 
(235 deg. T, on a line of sight from the Kellstone Crib Light to the 
West Harbor Entrance Channel Light #1) from the Kellstone Crib Light 
at 41 deg.36'36'' N, 82 deg.43'40'' W to the point of intersection 
of the South Passage Transit Channel center line at 41 deg.35'15'' 
N, 82 deg.46'24'' W.
    (3) Marblehead Stone Dock Lane: an area 150 yards to either side 
of a line (approximately 1\1/4\ statute miles long) running 
northerly (019 deg. T), from the Marblehead Stone Dock Light at 
41 deg.32'42'' N, 82 deg.43'48'' W to the point of intersection of 
the South Passage Transit Channel center line at 41 deg.33'45'' N, 
82 deg.43'19'' W.
    (4) Catawba Island to South Bass Island Ferry Lane: an area 150 
yards to either side of a line (approximately 2\3/4\ statute miles 
long) running due north (000 deg. T), from the ferry dock on the 
north side of Catawba Island (41 deg.35'16'' N, 82 deg.50'13'' W) to 
the ferry dock on the south side of South Bass Island 
(41 deg.37'43'' N, 82 deg.50'13'' W).
    (5) Neuman Marblehead to Kelleys Island Ferry Lane: an area 150 
yards to either side of a line (approximately 3\1/2\ statute miles 
long) running northerly (006 deg. T), from the Neuman ferry dock at 
Marblehead (41 deg.32'39'' N, 82 deg.43'55'' W) to the Newman ferry 
dock on the south side of Kelleys Island (41 deg.35'42'' N, 
82 deg.43'31'' W).
    (6) Kellstone Marblehead to Kelleys Island Ferry Lane: an area 
150 yards to either side of a line (approximately 3\3/8\ statute 
miles long) running northerly (019 deg. T), from the Kellstone ferry 
dock at Marblehead (41 deg.32'38'' N, 82 deg.43'39'' W) to the 
Kellstone ferry dock on the south side of Kelleys Island 
(41 deg.35'21'' N, 82 deg.42'20'' W).
    (b) Regulations. Vessels shall not anchor or drift in these 
regulated navigation areas.
    Option 4-B. Designated no-anchor and no-drift choke points. This 
would be the same as Option 4-A, except that it would be limited to 
smaller areas in critical choke points on the ends of the commercial 
lanes instead of extending to the whole length of the lanes. These 
choke points could include (1) the approximately 600 by 1000 yard area 
immediately south of Starve Island Reef Red Buoy #2 bounded by the 25-
foot depth contour, (2) a 300 by 1500 yard rectangle with a long axis 
of 224 deg. true

[[Page 67975]]

running from the light on the end of the Kellstone dock on the east 
side of Kelleys Island to the middle of the channel between Carpenter 
point and the Red #2 Buoy off the point, and (3) 300 by 1000 yard areas 
off each of the ferry docks on South Bass Island, Catawba Island, 
Kelleys Island, and Marblehead.
    Under this option, the area marked off for no anchoring or drifting 
would be approximately 3% of the total area of the South Passage. Other 
forms of navigation would not be restricted.

    Draft Regulatory Text, Option 4-B:


Sec. 165.905  South Passage of Western Lake Erie--regulated navigation 
areas.

    (a) Locations. The following areas in the South Passage of 
Western Lake Erie are regulated navigation areas:
    (1) Scott Point Shoal and Starve Island Reef Channel: an area 
300 yards to either side of a line (approximately 1 statute mile 
long) running northwesterly (302 deg. T) from a point at 
41 deg.36'17'' N, 82 deg.48'19'' W (approximately 300 yards 
northeast of Scott Point Shoal Green Buoy #1) to a point at 
41 deg.36'40'' N, 82 deg.49'16'' W (approximately 300 yards 
southwest of Starve Island Reef Red Buoy #2).
    (2) Kellstone Approach Channel: an area 150 yards to either side 
of a line (approximately 1\1/4\ statute miles long) running 
southwesterly (235 deg. T, on a line of sight from the Kellstone 
Crib Light to the West Harbor Entrance Channel Light #1) from the 
Kellstone Crib Light at 41 deg.36'36'' N, 82 deg.43'40'' W to a 
point at 41 deg.36'02'' N, 82 deg.44'50'' W.
    (3) Marblehead Stone Dock Approach Channel: an area 150 yards to 
either side of a line running 019 deg. T for 1000 yards from the 
Marblehead Stone Dock Light at 41 deg.32'42'' N, 82 deg.43'48'' W.
    (4) South Passage Ferry Approach Channels: areas 150 yards to 
either side of lines 1000 yards long running:
    (i) 000 deg. T from the ferry docks on the north side of Catawba 
Island (41 deg.35'16'' N, 82 deg.50'13'' W);
    (ii) 180 deg. T from the ferry dock on the south side of South 
Bass Island (41 deg.37'43'' N, 82 deg.50'13'' W);
    (iii) 0006 deg. T from the Neuman ferry dock at Marblehead 
(41 deg.32'39'' N, 82 deg.43'55'' W):
    (iv) 186 deg. T from the Neuman ferry dock on the south side of 
Kelleys Island (41 deg.35'42'' N, 82 deg.43'31'' W);
    (v) 019 deg. T from the Kellstone ferry dock at Marblehead 
(41 deg.32'38'' N, 82 deg.43'39'' W); and
    (vi) 099 deg. T from the Kellstone ferry dock on the south side 
of Kelleys Island (41 deg.35'21'' N, 82 deg.42'20'' W).
    (b) Regulations. Vessels shall not anchor or drift in these 
regulated navigation areas.

    Option 4-C. Designated give-way areas. The same areas indicated 
above in either Option 4-A or Option 4-B, either lanes or choke points, 
could be designated as areas in which vessels less than 20 meters in 
length are obligated to clear the designated area upon the approach of 
barges, ferries, or other commercial vessels greater than 20 meters in 
length. In effect, this would be creating a ``narrow channel'' rule for 
each of these designated areas. Such a rule may or may not already 
apply in some of these areas depending on interpretation on the general 
rules. But this would make it clear and unambiguous, with notice to all 
parties beforehand. However, it is difficult to specify a practical 
decision rule for determining how close the approaching large vessel 
need be before the small vessel would be obligated to clear the 
channel.
    Draft Regulatory Text, Option 4-C:


Sec. 165.905  South Passage of Western Lake Erie--regulated navigation 
areas.

    (a) Locations. [Locations would be the same as those in either 
Option 4-A or Option 4-B above.]
    (B) Regulations. In these regulated navigation areas, all 
vessels less than 20 meters in length shall clear the area upon the 
approach of barges, ferries, or other commercial vessels greater 
than 20 meters in length.

Drafting Information

    The drafters of this regulation are Lieutenant Commander Rhae 
Giacoma, Assistant Chief, Marine Safety Analysis and Policy Branch, the 
project officer, and Commander Eric Reeves, Chief, Marine Safety 
Analysis and Policy Branch, Marine Safety Division, Ninth Coast Guard 
District.

The Environment, the Economy, and Federalism

    The Coast Guard invites comments on significant effects that any of 
the actions or nonactions proposed in this notion would have on the 
environment, economics, or federalism:
    (1) Would any of these proposed regulations or other options 
considered here have a significant environmental impact on the South 
Passage, Lake Erie, or nearby shore areas? If so, what resources would 
be impacted? How would the impacts be likely to occur?
    (2) Would any of these proposed regulations or other options 
considered here have a significant economic impact on any small 
business or other small entity? If so, what are the likely costs? How 
would those costs be incurred?
    (3) Would any of these proposed regulations or other options 
considered here intrude into areas traditionally not regulated by the 
Federal Government or otherwise implications for Federal and State 
relations?

    Dated: December 2, 1996.
John A. Bastek,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 96-32836 Filed 12-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M