![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Safety Zone; Carquinez Strait, Vallejo and Crockett, CA
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 16, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18523-18527]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap02-29]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Francisco Bay 02-003]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone; Carquinez Strait, Vallejo and Crockett, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
in the navigable waters of the Carquinez Strait surrounding the
construction site of the new U.S. Interstate 80 bridge (Alfred Zampa
Memorial Bridge) over a 30-day period for approximately 6-hours per
day. The purpose of this safety zone is to protect persons and vessels
from hazards associated with bridge construction activities;
specifically, those hazards associated with stringing cables across the
Strait. The safety zone will temporarily prohibit usage of the
Carquinez Strait waters surrounding the Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge;
specifically, no vessels will be permitted to pass beneath the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 16, 2002.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to the Waterways
Management Branch at the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San
Francisco Bay, Coast Guard Island, Building 14, Alameda, California
94501-5100, or deliver them to room 108 at the same address between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Waterways Management Branch of Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay
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 U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, Coast Guard Island,
Building 14, Room 108, Alameda, California 94501-5100 between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ross Sargent, Chief,
Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San
Francisco Bay, (510) 437-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 18524]]
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 San
Francisco Bay 02-003), 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.
In our final rule, we will include a concise general statement of
the comments received and identify any changes from the proposed rule
based on the comments. If as we expect, we make the final rule
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register,
we will explain our good cause for doing so as required by 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Branch at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If
we determine that a public meeting 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
The State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has
determined that the original bridge spanning Carquinez Strait must be
replaced. CALTRANS has begun construction on the new bridge (Alfred
Zampa Memorial Bridge) and is nearing a phase that will involve
stringing steel cables across the Strait. More specifically, the cable
stringing process will involve attaching an approximately 1.5-inch
diameter steel cable at the bridge's southern terminus and deploying
the cable from a reel-equipped barge as it is towed northward. The
cable itself will be partially submerged in the Strait until it is
connected to the northern terminus, winched upward and secured
approximately 150 feet above the Strait. The deployment phase will take
approximately 6 hours for each cable.
In February 2002, CALTRANS advised the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port that a series of channel closures would be necessary in order to
accomplish the cable stringing. The Coast Guard, along with CALTRANS,
the contractor, a joint venture of FCI Constructors, Inc./Cleveland
Bridge California, Inc. (FCI/CB), and the San Francisco Bar Pilots,
have been planning the logistics for the closures in order to ensure
minimal impacts on involved and potentially involved entities.
The purpose of this proposed safety zone is to protect persons and
vessels from hazards, injury and damage associated with the bridge
construction activities, and cable stringing in particular. One of the
dangers during the cable deployment phase is the partially submerged
cable that could inflict serious injury or death to mariners, as well
as cause major damage to the hull, propeller and rudder of vessels,
attempting to pass over it. Similarly, the cable deployment barge, its
towing vessel and towing line all pose significant collision dangers to
vessels transiting the area. In addition, when the heavy 1.5-inch steel
cable is being winched to approximately 150 feet above the Strait, it
may part or break loose and fall upon vessels below.
This proposed temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the
Carquinez Strait surrounding the construction site of the Alfred Zampa
Memorial Bridge would be in effect during the course of a 30-day
period, but would only be enforced for approximately six hours in a
given day. The times would be different for each day based on factors
that will be explained in detail in the Discussion section. In
addition, this safety zone would not be enforced everyday during the
30-day period.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone that would be
enforced for approximately 6 hours per day on certain days between June
17, 2002 and July 16, 2002. The proposed safety zone is necessary to
protect persons and vessels from hazards, injury and damage associated
with the bridge construction activities, and cable stringing in
particular.
The proposed safety zone would encompass the navigable waters, from
the surface to the bottom, within two lines; one line drawn from the
westernmost pier at Crockett Marina [38 deg.03'28" N, 122 deg.13'42" W]
extending due north to the opposite shore [38 deg.03'56" N,
122 deg.13'42" W], and the other line drawn from the western end of the
C & H Sugar facility [38 deg.03'28" N, 122 deg.13'26" W]
extending due
north to the opposite shore [38 deg.03'54" N, 122 deg.13'26" W].
[Datum: NAD 83].
The proposed dates and approximate enforcement times are based on
certain factors that were considered by the U.S. Coast Guard, San
Francisco Bar Pilots, and the contractor, FCI/CB. These factors
included working with favorable tides and currents; and minimizing
closures during darkness, and the Fourth of July holiday. The proposed
safety zone would be enforced for approximately 6 hours at a time. On
some days the proposed safety zone may be enforced for less than 6
hours. The approximate period of 6 hours is based on the time required
to string each of the cables from the bridge's southern terminus to its
northern terminus. Although the approximate times that are being
proposed here are for a duration of approximately 5.5 hours in length,
more precise times will be known during the first few days that the
safety zone will be enforced.
CALTRANS has proposed times that provide adequate safety to
construction crews and vessels transiting the area, while minimizing
the impact on vessels transiting through the Strait. As with other
construction projects, there are certain unknown factors, such as
weather conditions and possible unforeseen problems that will only be
known on a particular day during the cable stringing process.
Therefore, the proposed safety zone enforcement periods are approximate
times only. During the days of construction, when further information
becomes available about the exact times that the proposed safety zone
would be enforced, the Captain of the Port would advise the public in
several ways. Mariners that would or could be effected by the channel
closures, would be advised to monitor for broadcast notice to mariners
alerts on VHF-FM marine channel 16 or contact the Captain of the Port
representative on scene via VHF-FM marine channel 22. Vessel Movement
Reporting System users (VMRS users) would be similarly advised by Coast
Guard Vessel Traffic Service San Francisco via VHF-FM marine channel
14. The proposed safety zone dates and approximate enforcement times
are as follows:
[[Page 18525]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety zone in Safety zone
Date effect expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2002................... 7:30 a.m.......... 1 p.m.
June 18, 2002................... 9 a.m............. 2:30 p.m.
June 19, 2002................... 10 a.m............ 3:30 p.m.
June 20, 2002................... 11:30 a.m......... 5 p.m.
June 21, 2002................... 1 p.m............. 6:30 p.m.
June 22, 2002................... 8 a.m............. 1:30 p.m.
June 23, 2002................... 9 a.m............. 2:30 p.m.
June 24, 2002................... 9:30 a.m.......... 3 p.m.
June 25, 2002................... 10 a.m............ 3:30 p.m.
June 26, 2002................... 10:30 a.m......... 4 p.m.
June 27, 2002................... 4 a.m............. 9:30 a.m.
June 28, 2002................... 4:30 a.m.......... 10 a.m.
June 29, 2002................... 5:30 a.m.......... 11 a.m.
June 30, 2002................... 6:30 a.m.......... 12 (noon)
July 1, 2002.................... 7:30 a.m.......... 1 p.m.
July 2, 2002.................... 8:30 a.m.......... 2 p.m.
July 3, 2002.................... 5 a.m............. 10:30 a.m.
July 4, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced
July 5, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced
July 6, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced
July 7, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced
July 8, 2002.................... 8:30 a.m.......... 2 p.m.
July 9, 2002.................... 9:30 a.m.......... 3 p.m.
July 10, 2002................... 10 a.m............ 3:30 p.m.
July 11, 2002................... 10:30 a.m......... 4 p.m.
July 12, 2002................... 4 a.m............. 9:30 a.m.
July 13, 2002................... 5 a.m............. 10:30 a.m.
July 14, 2002................... 5:30 a.m.......... 11 a.m.
July 15, 2002................... 7 a.m............. 12:30 p.m.
July 16, 2002................... 7:30 a.m.......... 12:30 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, l979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
The effect of this regulation would not be significant for several
reasons. The San Francisco Bar Pilots, responsible for guiding all deep
draft commercial vessels in the area of the safety zone, have been
working closely with CALTRANS, the contractor, and the U.S. Coast Guard
in order to ensure minimal impact to deep draft commercial vessel
traffic. The safety zone would be enforced for approximately 6 hours
per day, taking into account tides, currents, daylight and vessel
traffic patterns. In addition, we have attempted to minimize impacts on
the regional commercial and sport fishing industries. Finally, advance
notifications of the channel closures would be made to the local
maritime community by broadcast notice to mariner alerts over marine
band radio, on-scene Captain of the Port representatives and Coast
Guard Vessel Traffic Service radio communications.
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 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. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or
operators of commercial shrimp or charter fishing vessels intending to
transit through the Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge construction area
during safety zone enforcement periods (temporary channel closures).
Additionally, since recreational sport fishing vessels would not be
able to transit the channel during temporary channel closures, and thus
possibly divert to fish at other places and times, local bait and
tackle businesses may be impacted.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the Strait,
the rule would normally be enforced for six hours usually early in the
day, during the height of the day's first tidal cycle. Such
predictability would enable fishing vessels to schedule transits
through the safety zone area before or after the 6-hour safety zone
enforcement periods. Before and during the enforcement periods, Captain
of the Port representatives in patrol vessels would assume their
stations to the east and west of the safety zone to provide notice and
enforcement of the zone. The Coast Guard would also issue broadcast
notice to mariners alerts via VHF-FM marine channel 16 before the
safety zone is enforced.
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.
[[Page 18526]]
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 Lieutenant Ross Sargent, U.S.
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay at (510) 437-3073.
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 an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 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.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes,
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11,
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal
implication'' under the Order.
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. 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.
Environment
We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed 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. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
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:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Add new Sec. 165.T11-078 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T11-078 Safety Zone: Carquinez Strait, Vallejo and Crockett,
CA.
(a) Location. The safety zone encompasses the navigable waters,
from the surface to the bottom, within two lines; one line drawn from
the westernmost pier at Crockett Marina [38 deg.03'28" N,
122 deg.13'42" W]
extending due north to the opposite shore
[38 deg.03'56" N, 122 deg.13'42" W], and the other line drawn from the
western end of the C & H Sugar facility [38 deg.03'28" N,
122 deg.13'26" W]
extending due north to the opposite shore
[38 deg.03'54" N, 122 deg.13'26" W]. [Datum: NAD 83].
(b) Effective period. This safety zone is effective from 7:30 a.m.,
June 17, 2002 to 12:30 p.m., July 16, 2002.
(c) Enforcement periods. The Coast Guard will notify the maritime
public of the precise times for enforcement of the safety zone via
broadcast notice to mariners, Vessel Traffic Service radio
communications, and Captain of the Port representatives on scene. If
the safety zone is no longer needed prior to the scheduled termination
times, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of this safety
zone and will announce that fact via broadcast notice to mariners. The
safety zone dates and times are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety zone in Safety zone
Date effect expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2002................... 7:30 a.m.......... 1 p.m.
June 18, 2002................... 9 a.m............. 2:30 p.m.
June 19, 2002................... 10 a.m............ 3:30 p.m.
June 20, 2002................... 11:30 a.m......... 5 p.m.
[[Page 18527]]
June 21, 2002................... 1 p.m............. 6:30 p.m.
June 22, 2002................... 8 a.m............. 1:30 p.m.
June 23, 2002................... 9 a.m............. 2:30 p.m.
June 24, 2002................... 9:30 a.m.......... 3 p.m.
June 25, 2002................... 10 a.m............ 3:30 p.m.
June 26, 2002................... 10:30 a.m......... 4 p.m.
June 27, 2002................... 4 a.m............. 9:30 a.m.
June 28, 2002................... 4:30 a.m.......... 10 a.m.
June 29, 2002................... 5:30 a.m.......... 11 a.m.
June 30, 2002................... 6:30 a.m.......... 12 (noon)
July 1, 2002.................... 7:30 a.m.......... 1 p.m.
July 2, 2002.................... 8:30 a.m.......... 2 p.m.
July 3, 2002.................... 5 a.m............. 10:30 a.m.
July 4, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced.
July 5, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced.
July 6, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced.
July 7, 2002.................... No safety zone enforced.
July 8, 2002.................... 8:30 a.m.......... 2 p.m.
July 9, 2002.................... 9:30 a.m.......... 3 p.m.
July 10, 2002................... 10 a.m............ 3:30 p.m.
July 11, 2002................... 10:30 a.m......... 4 p.m.
July 12, 2002................... 4 a.m............. 9:30 a.m.
July 13, 2002................... 5 a.m............. 10:30 a.m.
July 14, 2002................... 5:30 a.m.......... 11 a.m.
July 15, 2002................... 7 a.m............. 12:30 p.m.
July 16, 2002................... 7:30 a.m.......... 12:30 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec. 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter, transit
through, or anchor within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
Dated: April 5, 2002.
L.L. Hereth,
Captain, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco Bay.
[FR Doc. 02-9131 Filed 4-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P