80 FR 23493 - Special Load Line Exemption for Lake Michigan/Muskegon Route: Petition for Rulemaking

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 81 (April 28, 2015)

Page Range		23493-23495
FR Document		2015-09790

On May 27, 2014, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment regarding a petition for a rulemaking action. The petition requested that the Coast Guard establish a load line-exempted route on Lake Michigan, along the eastern coast to Muskegon, MI. Upon review of the comments as well as analysis of safety considerations and other factors described in the discussion section, the Coast Guard has decided not to proceed with the requested rulemaking. The public comments, and the Coast Guard's reasoning for its decision, are discussed in this notice.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23493-23495]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 45

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0954]


Special Load Line Exemption for Lake Michigan/Muskegon Route: 
Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: On May 27, 2014, the Coast Guard published a Notice of 
Availability and Request for Public Comment regarding a petition for a 
rulemaking action. The petition requested that the Coast Guard 
establish a load line-exempted route on Lake Michigan, along the 
eastern coast to Muskegon, MI. Upon review of the comments as well as 
analysis of safety considerations and other factors described in the 
discussion section, the Coast Guard has decided not to proceed with the 
requested rulemaking. The public comments, and the Coast Guard's 
reasoning for its decision, are discussed in this notice.

DATES: The petition for rulemaking published on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 
30061) is denied.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
contact Mr. Thomas Jordan, Naval Architecture Division (CG-ENG-2), U.S. 
Coast Guard Headquarters, at telephone 202-372-1370, or by email at 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
    All Federal Register notices, public comments, and other documents 
cited in this notice may be viewed in the on-line docket at 
www.regulations.gov (enter docket number ``USCG-2014-0954'' in the 
search box).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History and Background:

    The purpose of a load line (LL) assignment is to ensure that a 
vessel is seaworthy for operation on exposed coastal and offshore 
waters, including the Great Lakes. In general, LL assignment requires 
that vessels are robustly constructed, fitted with watertight and 
weathertight closures, and are inspected annually to ensure that they 
are being maintained in a seaworthy condition. (A more-detailed 
discussion of LL assignment is given in our previous Notice of 
Availability, 79 FR 30061 on May 27, 2014.)
    Because river barges are not typically constructed to the required 
hull strength standards for load line assignment, nor subject to the 
same periodic inspections, they are not normally allowed to operate on 
the Great Lakes. However, certain river barges are allowed on 
carefully-evaluated routes, under restricted conditions as follows. 
There are currently three such routes on Lake Michigan:
    Burns Harbor route: In 1985, a LL-exempted route was established 
along the southern shore of Lake Michigan to allow river barges to 
operate under fair weather conditions between Calumet (Chicago), IL, 
and Burns Harbor, IN, a distance of 27 nautical miles (NM), with 
several ports of refuge along the way (the longest distance between 
them is just 11 NM). The tows must remain within 5 NM of shore, and the 
barges are prohibited from carrying liquid or hazardous cargoes, and 
must have a minimum freeboard of 24 inches.
    Milwaukee route: In 1992, a special LL regime was established along 
the western shore of Lake Michigan, between Calumet and Milwaukee, WI, 
a distance of 92 NM (the longest distance between ports of refuge is 33 
NM). This special LL regime revised the normal robust construction 
requirements for a Great Lakes LL, in conjunction with similar cargo 
restrictions, weather limitations, and freeboard assignment as for the 
Burns Harbor route. Barges more than 10 years old are required to have 
an initial dry-dock inspection to verify the material condition of the 
hull, but a newer barge could obtain the special LL provided it passed 
an initial afloat inspection by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). 
All barges were subject to annual ABS inspections to verify that they 
were being maintained in a seaworthy condition. Tows are limited to 
three barges, and the towing vessel must be least 1,000 HP.
    Milwaukee route risk assessment study: However, the towing industry 
still considered the cost of the special LL assignment to be too 
prohibitive for establishing river barge service to Milwaukee. 
Accordingly, in 2000, the Port of Milwaukee organized a risk assessment 
(RA) working group that included port officials, towing & barge 
companies, and terminal operators (the Risk Assessment report can be 
viewed on-line in the docket). The RA group reviewed meteorological 
information and evaluated the viability of the ports of refuge along 
the route, and concluded that restricting the age of eligible rivers 
barges to 10 years, in conjuction with self-inspection and self-
certication by barge owners/operators, provided the same level of 
seaworthiness assurance as LL assignment by ABS.
    The RA meetings were attended by USCG representatives, and the 
recommendations were reviewed by the Ninth Coast Guard District, which 
endorsed them. The Milwaukee route exemption went into effect in 2002.
    Muskegon route: Meanwhile, in 1996, the special LL regime for the 
Milwaukee route was extended along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan 
to Muskegon, a distance of 119 NM beyond Burns Harbor. River barges can 
still operate as far as Burns Harbor without any LL, but must obtain 
the special LL to proceed beyond that point to Muskegon. Recognizing 
the longer distance and more severe weather conditions on the eastern 
side of Lake Michigan, there were some additional requirements 
pertaining to the towing vessel.
    Because the Muskegon route was not evaluated as part of the 
Milwaukee risk assessment study, it was not included in the exemption.
    Petition for LL exemption on the Muskegon route: In October 2013, 
the Coast Guard received two letters requesting that we establish a 
load line exemption for river barges on the Muskegon route. The basis 
for the request was that the LL requirements (route restrictions and 
load line inspection requirements) were preventing Michigan from 
transporting

[[Page 23494]]

agricultural products on river barges via the Mississippi-Illinois 
River system.
    In response to the petition request, the Coast Guard opened a 
public docket USCG-2014-0954 and published a Notice of Availability and 
Request for Public Comment (79 FR 30061, May 27, 2014) with a 90-day 
comment period. The comment period closed on August 25, 2014.

Discussion of Comments

    In response to the notice, 92 comments were posted in the docket, 
submitted by 42 individuals, 16 commercial companies (mostly 
agricultural-associated), several trade associations, resolutions 
signed by various Michigan municipal organizations as well as state and 
Congressional representatives. All comments can be viewed on-line in 
the docket.
    To summarize, the comments fall into three categories:
    Supportive: 59 comments supported the petition on general 
principles. They commented on the potential economic benefits, such as 
reduced shipping costs for northbound cargoes (fertilizer was 
mentioned) and southbound cargoes (grain), as well as employment/job 
creation. However, none of these comments included any specific details 
or estimates with respect to shipment costs, cargo volumes, employment 
levels, etc.
    One supportive commenter reported that a local steel fabricator 
could not compete on a contract for steel tanks that could have been 
transported by a non-LL river barge from Muskegon for downriver 
delivery to the Gulf of Mexico. Because of the extra cost of using a LL 
barge to get the steel tanks to Calumet and then transhipping it onto a 
river barge, the company could not compete.
    Another supportive comment mentioned the impending shut-down of the 
B. C. Cobb power plant in Muskegon, which burns 640,000 tons of coal 
per year, delivered by Lake freighters. Without the annual tonnage of 
coal delivery, the port would no longer qualify for dredging support by 
the Army Corps of Engineers. The commenter viewed the route exemption 
as a possible means of encouraging new cargo movements through the port 
(such as fertilizer and grain), and thereby maintain its dredging 
eligibility.
    Opposed: 23 comments opposed the petition, typically over concerns 
about catastrophic environmental impact if a cargo were lost 
(especially a load of fertilizer). Several mentioned the Lake Erie 
algae bloom in the summer of 2014, which shut down the Toledo municipal 
water supply for several days.
    Other opposing comments expressed concern that the route would 
cause the spread of Asian carp and/or other invasive species from the 
Mississippi River system.
    From a vessel safety perspective, several opposing commenters 
stated that the eastern side of Lake Michigan has the most 
unpredictable weather and is the most-exposed. One commenter pointed 
out that the voyage distance to Muskegon was approximately 114 miles, 
which would take 16 to 23 hours, more than enough time (in their 
opinion) for the weather to change unexpectedly. Another commenter (an 
experienced Lake tug & barge operator) stated that attempting to get a 
string of three barges into any of the ports-of-refuge under adverse 
weather conditions would be very difficult and risky; they felt that 
the tug master would be more likely to take a chance and try to ride 
out the weather on the open Lake rather than risk entry into a refuge, 
thus exposing river barges to storm conditions and increasing the 
likelihood of a casualty.
    Conditionally supportive, or concerned: 10 commenters either 
expressed conditional support for the petition provided that the 
environmental risks were addressed, or simply expressed their concerns 
about possible adverse effects (without clearly supporting or opposing 
the petition).

Discussion of Decision

    Upon review of the petition itself and the docket comments, the 
Coast Guard has decided to deny the rulemaking petition. The Coast 
Guard will not amend the regulations to provide for the requested route 
exemption, for reasons discussed below.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that there are similarities between the 
two Lake Michigan routes, which invites comparison between the LL-
exempted Milwaukee route and the LL-required Muskegon route. For 
example, barges on both routes are built to the same structural (river-
service) standards and subject to the same level of weather 
restrictions. However, there are some significant differences between 
the routes that affect operational safety, as further explained below. 
The public comments submitted to the docket did not provide sufficient 
information that alleviates the operational safety concerns found on 
this route.
    Weather/Safety considerations: Although several comments spoke of 
``improved forecasting technology'' over the years since the earlier 
rulemakings, no specific details were provided. The evaluations 
conducted during consideration of the earlier exempted or conditional 
load line routes noted that the prevailing weather patterns on the 
eastern side of Lake Michigan are generally more severe than the 
western side. The survey/certification requirements in the existing 
special LL regime provide an additional, necessary safety net to 
account for risks associated with severe weather. An exemption from the 
special LL regime could be detrimental to safety.
    Ports-of-refuge: the Muskegon route extends approximately 119 NM 
beyond Burns Harbor. There are three large harbors along the route (St. 
Joseph, Holland, and Grand Haven), and two smaller harbors that might 
be suitable ports-of-refuge. However, the current viability of these 
harbors has not been verified (Army Corps of Engineering fact sheets 
for these ports mention that several of them have experienced channel 
shoaling due to winter storms and Hurricane Sandy). Furthermore, the 
intermediate distance between Burns Harbor and St. Joseph is 41 NM, and 
between St. Joseph and Holland is 47 NM. These distances are much 
longer than the longest intermediate distance on the Milwaukee route 
(33 NM). The availability of and distance to a port of safe refuge is a 
critical element in the evaluation of load line conditional or exempted 
routes. The ability to reach a port of safe refuge is important if 
unexpected weather or damage causes the need to seek safety from the 
open Lake.
    Economic benefits: Although several comments suggested that further 
reductions/relaxation of certain loadline requirements could result in 
economic, operational benefits. These economic benefits have not been 
quantified and may be offset by the costs associated with other safety 
requirements necessary to protect river barges operating along this 
exposed route, for example, costs associated with complying with 
mandatory maximum age-restrictions on the barges, similar to the 
Milwaukee route. As such, the Coast Guard is unable to verify the 
claims of economic benefits. The existing special LL regime on the 
Muskegon route is a less restrictive LL regime than that required for 
an unrestricted Great Lakes LL. River barges are already permitted to 
operate on this route, under certain controlled conditions.
    Risk assessment: Unlike the Milwaukee route, no risk assessment has 
been performed for the Muskegon route. In the absence of such a risk 
assessment, and in consideration of the more-volatile weather patterns 
and the longer transit times between ports of

[[Page 23495]]

refuge, the Coast Guard believes that the initial and annual LL 
surveys, undertaken per the special loadline requirements for this 
route, provide a necessary margin of seaworthiness assurance.
    For the reasons above, the Coast Guard denies the petition and will 
not undertake the requested rulemaking.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(e), 555(e) 
and 46 U.S.C. 5108.

    Dated: April 21, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-09790 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

23494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules

agricultural products on river barges via which shut down the Toledo municipal evaluations conducted during
the Mississippi-Illinois River system. water supply for several days. consideration of the earlier exempted or
In response to the petition request, the Other opposing comments expressed conditional load line routes noted that
Coast Guard opened a public docket concern that the route would cause the the prevailing weather patterns on the
USCG–2014–0954 and published a spread of Asian carp and/or other eastern side of Lake Michigan are
Notice of Availability and Request for invasive species from the Mississippi generally more severe than the western
Public Comment (79 FR 30061, May 27, River system. side. The survey/certification
2014) with a 90-day comment period. From a vessel safety perspective, requirements in the existing special LL
The comment period closed on August several opposing commenters stated that regime provide an additional, necessary
25, 2014. the eastern side of Lake Michigan has safety net to account for risks associated
the most unpredictable weather and is with severe weather. An exemption
Discussion of Comments the most-exposed. One commenter from the special LL regime could be
In response to the notice, 92 pointed out that the voyage distance to detrimental to safety.
comments were posted in the docket, Muskegon was approximately 114 Ports-of-refuge: the Muskegon route
submitted by 42 individuals, 16 miles, which would take 16 to 23 hours, extends approximately 119 NM beyond
commercial companies (mostly more than enough time (in their Burns Harbor. There are three large
agricultural-associated), several trade opinion) for the weather to change harbors along the route (St. Joseph,
associations, resolutions signed by unexpectedly. Another commenter (an Holland, and Grand Haven), and two
various Michigan municipal experienced Lake tug & barge operator) smaller harbors that might be suitable
organizations as well as state and stated that attempting to get a string of ports-of-refuge. However, the current
Congressional representatives. All three barges into any of the ports-of- viability of these harbors has not been
comments can be viewed on-line in the refuge under adverse weather verified (Army Corps of Engineering fact
docket. conditions would be very difficult and sheets for these ports mention that
To summarize, the comments fall into risky; they felt that the tug master would several of them have experienced
three categories: be more likely to take a chance and try channel shoaling due to winter storms
Supportive: 59 comments supported to ride out the weather on the open Lake and Hurricane Sandy). Furthermore, the
the petition on general principles. They rather than risk entry into a refuge, thus intermediate distance between Burns
commented on the potential economic exposing river barges to storm Harbor and St. Joseph is 41 NM, and
benefits, such as reduced shipping costs conditions and increasing the likelihood between St. Joseph and Holland is 47
for northbound cargoes (fertilizer was of a casualty. NM. These distances are much longer
Conditionally supportive, or than the longest intermediate distance
mentioned) and southbound cargoes
concerned: 10 commenters either on the Milwaukee route (33 NM). The
(grain), as well as employment/job
expressed conditional support for the availability of and distance to a port of
creation. However, none of these
petition provided that the safe refuge is a critical element in the
comments included any specific details
environmental risks were addressed, or evaluation of load line conditional or
or estimates with respect to shipment
simply expressed their concerns about exempted routes. The ability to reach a
costs, cargo volumes, employment
possible adverse effects (without clearly port of safe refuge is important if
levels, etc.
supporting or opposing the petition). unexpected weather or damage causes
One supportive commenter reported the need to seek safety from the open
that a local steel fabricator could not Discussion of Decision
Lake.
compete on a contract for steel tanks Upon review of the petition itself and Economic benefits: Although several
that could have been transported by a the docket comments, the Coast Guard comments suggested that further
non-LL river barge from Muskegon for has decided to deny the rulemaking reductions/relaxation of certain loadline
downriver delivery to the Gulf of petition. The Coast Guard will not requirements could result in economic,
Mexico. Because of the extra cost of amend the regulations to provide for the operational benefits. These economic
using a LL barge to get the steel tanks requested route exemption, for reasons benefits have not been quantified and
to Calumet and then transhipping it discussed below. may be offset by the costs associated
onto a river barge, the company could The Coast Guard recognizes that there with other safety requirements
not compete. are similarities between the two Lake necessary to protect river barges
Another supportive comment Michigan routes, which invites operating along this exposed route, for
mentioned the impending shut-down of comparison between the LL-exempted example, costs associated with
the B. C. Cobb power plant in Milwaukee route and the LL-required complying with mandatory maximum
Muskegon, which burns 640,000 tons of Muskegon route. For example, barges on age-restrictions on the barges, similar to
coal per year, delivered by Lake both routes are built to the same the Milwaukee route. As such, the Coast
freighters. Without the annual tonnage structural (river-service) standards and Guard is unable to verify the claims of
of coal delivery, the port would no subject to the same level of weather economic benefits. The existing special
longer qualify for dredging support by restrictions. However, there are some LL regime on the Muskegon route is a
the Army Corps of Engineers. The significant differences between the less restrictive LL regime than that
commenter viewed the route exemption routes that affect operational safety, as required for an unrestricted Great Lakes
as a possible means of encouraging new further explained below. The public LL. River barges are already permitted to
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

cargo movements through the port (such comments submitted to the docket did operate on this route, under certain
as fertilizer and grain), and thereby not provide sufficient information that controlled conditions.
maintain its dredging eligibility. alleviates the operational safety Risk assessment: Unlike the
Opposed: 23 comments opposed the concerns found on this route. Milwaukee route, no risk assessment
petition, typically over concerns about Weather/Safety considerations: has been performed for the Muskegon
catastrophic environmental impact if a Although several comments spoke of route. In the absence of such a risk
cargo were lost (especially a load of ‘‘improved forecasting technology’’ over assessment, and in consideration of the
fertilizer). Several mentioned the Lake the years since the earlier rulemakings, more-volatile weather patterns and the
Erie algae bloom in the summer of 2014, no specific details were provided. The longer transit times between ports of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Apr 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM 28APP1

$Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 23495 refuge, the Coast Guard believes that the For the reasons above, the Coast Dated: April 21, 2015. initial and annual LL surveys, Guard denies the petition and will not J.G. Lantz, undertaken per the special loadline undertake the requested rulemaking. Director of Commercial Regulations and requirements for this route, provide a This notice is issued under authority Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. necessary margin of seaworthiness of 5 U.S.C. 553(e), 555(e) and 46 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 2015–09790 Filed 4–27–15; 8:45 am] assurance. 5108. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Apr 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM 28APP1$

Document Created: 2015-12-16 08:35:44
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 08:35:44

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of decision.
Dates		The petition for rulemaking published on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30061) is denied.
Contact		If you have questions on this notice, contact Mr. Thomas Jordan, Naval Architecture Division (CG-ENG-2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, at telephone 202-372-1370, or by email at [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
FR Citation		80 FR 23493

80 FR 23493 - Special Load Line Exemption for Lake Michigan/Muskegon Route: Petition for Rulemaking

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 81 (April 28, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard