This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule; change in effective period.
The Coast Guard is revising the effective period of a temporary safety zone in the Gulf of the Farallones, North Pacific Ocean, surrounding the site of a sunken freight vessel, JACOB LUCKENBACH, from which the Coast Guard and other government agencies are removing oil trapped inside the wreck. The purpose of this safety zone is to protect persons and vessels from hazards associated with oil removal operations. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into or transiting through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The amendment to § 165.T11-082(c) in this rule is effective July 25, 2002. Section 165.T11-082, added at 67 FR 39600, June 10, 2002, effective from 11:59 p.m. PDT on May 14, 2002 to 11:59 p.m. PDT July 31, 2002, as amended in this rule, is extended in effect to 11:59 p.m. PDT on September 30, 2002.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP San Francisco Bay 02-008] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, Building 14, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California 94501-5100 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Ross Sargent, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, at (510) 437-3073.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On June 10, 2002, we published a temporary final rule (TFR) titled “Safety Zone; North Pacific Ocean, Gulf of the Farallones, offshore of San Francisco, CA” in the Federal Register (67 FR 39598) under § 165.T11-082. It has been in effect since May 14, 2002 and is set to expire 11:59 p.m. PDT on July 31, 2002.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM. The original TFR was urgently required because once it was decided that oil removal was the most prudent means of protecting against future discharges from the sunken vessel, it was determined that publishing a NPRM and delaying the effective date of the safety zone would be contrary to the public interest. As of today, the need for this safety zone still exists because inclement weather has thwarted oil removal operations for several weeks and thus much of the oil has yet to be removed from the vessel. Accordingly, using the same rationale that was used for the original TFR, publishing a NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the oil removal operations necessitating this safety zone would likely terminate before the rulemaking process was complete.
For the same reasons stated above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 Start Printed Page 49579days after publication in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
In November of 2001, the Coast Guard and other cognizant government agencies began receiving reports of oiled birds washing ashore along the California coastline between Monterey and Sonoma counties. Weeks of searching for surface sheens yielded negative results and prompted responding government agencies to consider sunken vessels in the area as possible sources of the contaminating oil. By February 2002, responding agencies identified the sunken freight vessel JACOB LUCKENBACH as the most probable source and began deploying camera-equipped remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) in order to view the sunken vessel. During this period, the Coast Guard learned that recreational and commercial divers had been diving on or were planning to dive on the sunken vessel while responding agencies were conducting the on-scene investigation. In February 2002, the Coast Guard established a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters surrounding the JACOB LUCKENBACH in order to protect persons and vessels from hazards associated with the investigation operations. That temporary safety zone expired at the end of April 2002.
The Coast Guard and other government agencies have reviewed the results of the investigation and have determined that removal of the oil from within the JACOB LUCKENBACH is the most prudent means of protecting against future oil discharges. Removal of the oil will require several surface and submersible vessels and associated equipment, all of which present hazards, particularly collision dangers, to persons and vessels in the area. As of today, the need for this safety zone still exists because inclement weather has thwarted oil removal operations for several weeks and thus much of the oil has yet to be removed from the vessel. This temporary final rule will extend this safety zone that was set to expire July 31, 2002 for 2 months—from July 31, 2002, to September 30, 2002.
Discussion of Rule
In order to continue facilitating safe oil removal operations and to guard against the possibility of an accidental discharge of a large quantity of oil into the environment, the Coast Guard is extending the current temporary safety zone in the navigable waters surrounding the sunken vessel. The safety zone encompasses all waters from the surface of the ocean to the bottom within a one nautical mile radius centered at 37°40.38′ N, 122°47.59′ W, the approximate position of the JACOB LUCKENBACH. Entry into, transit through or anchoring in this zone by persons, vessels or ROVs is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The requirements of this safety zone do not apply to deep draft vessels transiting within the Offshore Traffic Separation Scheme.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, l979). Due to the continued short duration and limited geographic scope of the safety zone, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that full regulatory evaluation under paragraph 10 (e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601-612), we must consider whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” may include small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are not dominant in their respective fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000.
For these reasons and the reasons stated in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Assistance For Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), the Coast Guard offers to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
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 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to Start Printed Page 49580minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because we are establishing a safety zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and record keeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Revise § 165.T11-082 to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) Effective period. This section is effective at 11:59 p.m. PDT on May 14, 2002 and will terminate at 11:59 p.m. PDT on September 30, 2002. If the need for the safety zone ends prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of the safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Dated: July 25, 2002.
L. L. Hereth,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco Bay.
[FR Doc. 02-19355 Filed 7-26-02; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P