Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone in the navigable waters of the Sacramento River that will prohibit vessels and people from entering into or remaining within close proximity to the deep water channel. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will be removing a conductor from the Liberty Island towers, two of which cross over the deep water channel, on March 28, 2007. The proposed safety zone will close the deep water channel for approximately 30 minutes during the conductor removal.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 14, 2007.
You may mail comments and related material to United States Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Safety Branch, Yerba Buena Island, Bldg. 278, San Francisco, California, 94130. The Waterways Safety Branch of Sector San Francisco maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Safety Branch of Sector San Francisco between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Eric Ramos, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at (415) 556-2950 or Sector San Francisco 24-hour Command Center at (415) 399-3547.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP SF 07-003), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Safety Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
PG&E will be removing a conductor from the Liberty Island towers on March 28, 2007. Two of the towers cross the Sacramento deep water channel. PG&E will use a helicopter to cut the conductor off of one tower and it will fall into the water. They will then recover the cut conductor and place it on the bank before continuing to remove the rest of the conductors from the remaining towers that are over land.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed safety zone will encompass the navigable waters of the Sacramento River from the surface to the sea floor, encompassing a circular area with a 500-yard radius at position 38°17.072′N / 121°39.619′W (NAD 83) for the removal of a conductor from a tower that crosses over the deep water channel. This proposed safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from hazards, injury, and damage associated with the conductor removal.
This proposed 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.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
Although this rule will restrict access to the waters encompassed by the proposed safety zone, the effect of this rule is not expected to be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public broadcast notice to mariners to ensure the proposed safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 Start Printed Page 9902governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This safety zone is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will only be in effect for approximately 30 minutes. Although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of the channel, traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.
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.
Assistance for Small Entities
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 so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 (see ADDRESSES). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
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.
We have analyzed this proposed 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:
2. Add § 165.T11-171, to read as follows:
(a) Location. This safety zone encompasses the navigable waters of the Sacramento River from the surface to the sea floor and is bounded by the arc of a circle with a 500-yard radius from position 38°17.072′N 121°39.619′W (NAD 83).
(b) Effective Date. This rule will be in effect on March 28, 2007 from approximately 11 a.m. through 11:30 a.m.
(c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this safety zone by all vessels and persons will be prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco, or his designated representative.
Dated: February 16, 2007.
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. E7-3804 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P