[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9901-9903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Francisco Bay 07-003]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Liberty Island Conductor Removal, Sacramento River, 
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: 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.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before March 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES: 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.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 
8\1/2\ 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.

Public Meeting

    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[deg]17.072'N / 
121[deg]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.

Regulatory Evaluation

    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.

Small Entities

    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

[[Page 9902]]

governmental 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.).

Federalism

    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.

Energy Effects

    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.

Technical Standards

    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.

Environment

    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.

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:


[[Page 9903]]


    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation 
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T11-171, to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T11-171  Safety Zone; Sacramento River Deep Water Channel, 
California.

    (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[deg]17.072'N 121[deg]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 
Sec.  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.
W.J. Uberti,
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