[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14840-14842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05176]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0890]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Highway 99 Partial Bridge Replacement, Stanislaus 
River, Ripon, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety 
zone for certain waters of the Stanislaus River. This action is 
necessary to provide for the safety of life on the Stanislaus River 
near the Highway 99 Bridge in Ripon, CA, during partial bridge 
replacement scheduled to occur between June 15, 2020 and November 7, 
2020. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from 
being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port 
San Francisco or a designated representative. We invite your comments 
on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before April 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0890 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Jennae Cotton, Waterways 
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 415-399-3585, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security

[[Page 14841]]

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 18, 2019, the California Department of Transportation 
notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting partial bridge 
replacement of the Highway 99 Bridge in Ripon, CA, from June 15, 2020 
to November 7, 2020. Approximately 200 feet of the existing concrete, 
double-arch bridge on Southbound Highway 99 over the Stanislaus River 
will be demolished, removed, and replaced. Bridge construction hazards 
include reduced bridge clearance and the potential for falling debris, 
such as steel beams and other construction materials from demolition 
and crane operations. The COTP has determined that potential hazards 
associated with the partial bridge replacement would be a safety 
concern for anyone within the Stanislaus River around or under the 
bridge construction project.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels 
and mariners in the navigable waters surrounding the Highway 99 Bridge 
in Ripon, CA during construction. The Coast Guard is proposing this 
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone surrounding the 
Highway 99 Bridge in Ripon, CA from June 15, 2020 through November 7, 
2020. The safety zone would encompass all navigable waters of the 
Stanislaus River, from surface to bottom, between the Union Pacific 
Railway Bridge to the west and the Stanislaus River pedestrian crossing 
bridge to the east of the Ripon Highway 99 Bridge, within the area 
formed by connecting the following approximate latitude and longitude 
points in the following order: 37[deg]43'47.7'' N, 121[deg]06'36.0'' W, 
thence to 37[deg]43'49.9'' N, 121[deg]06'38.6'' W, thence to 
37[deg]43'51.3'' N, 121[deg]06'36.1'' W, thence to 37[deg]43'49.2'' N, 
121[deg]06'33.6'' W (NAD 83), and thence to the point of beginning; or 
as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    This safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of mariners, 
vessels, and the navigable waters during the bridge construction 
project. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety 
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated 
representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end 
of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and 
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control 
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been 
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location of 
the safety zone. Vessel transits in the area are limited to 
recreational vessels and personal watercraft including small 
recreational vessels used for fishing, kayaks, and inner tubes. Notice 
would be provided to mariners via Notice to Mariners and posted at the 
construction site and adjacent river entry locations 30 days in 
advance.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on any vessel owner or operator. Notice will be provided 30 days 
in advance of the safety zone. River entry and exit points will be 
identified on both sides of the safety zone, and markers will provide 
mariners with clear instruction throughout the duration of the project. 
Depending on operations and river level parameters, mariners will be 
provided a transit lane on weekends between July 25, 2020 and November 
7, 2020.
    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.
    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. If the rule would affect 
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you 
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, 
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any 
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132.
    Also, 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. If 
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or 
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

[[Page 14842]]

E. 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 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made 
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety 
zone that would prohibit entry to the area surrounding the bridge 
construction site and would last approximately five months with 
intermittent weekend openings. Normally such actions are categorically 
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of 
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. A 
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this 
determination is available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the 
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. 
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so 
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or 
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, 
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment 
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If 
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which 
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or 
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for 
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, 
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's 
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up 
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a 
final rule is published.

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 is 
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-019 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T11-019   Safety Zone; Highway 99 Partial Bridge Replacement, 
Stanislaus River, Ripon, CA

    (a) Location. The following is a safety zone: The navigable waters 
of the Stanislaus River, from surface to bottom, between the Union 
Pacific Railway Bridge to the west and the Stanislaus River pedestrian 
crossing bridge to the east of the Highway 99 Ripon Bridge, within the 
area formed by connecting the following approximate latitude and 
longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]43'47.7'' N, 
121[deg]06'36.0'' W, thence to 37[deg]43'49.9'' N, 121[deg]06'38.6'' W, 
thence to 37[deg]43'51.3'' N, 121[deg]06'36.1'' W, thence to 
37[deg]43'49.2'' N, 121[deg]06'33.6'' W (NAD 83), and thence to the 
point of beginning; or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated 
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a 
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast 
Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or 
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the 
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in 
subpart B of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in 
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the 
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may 
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety 
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to 
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter 
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or 
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated 
representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the 
safety zone through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-
3547.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from June 15, 
2020 through November 7, 2020.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the COTP's designated 
representative will notify the maritime community of periods during 
which this zone will be enforced in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. 
Additionally, signage will be posted beginning 30 days prior to the 
start of the project and will remain posted for the duration of the 
project. River markers will be provided on the Stanislaus River on each 
side of the safety zone to direct mariners.

    Dated: March 9, 2020.
Howard H. Wright,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San 
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2020-05176 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P