Jump to main content.

Safety Zone; North Pacific Ocean, Gulf of the Farallones, offshore of San Francisco, CA

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: July 31, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 147)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49578-49580]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31jy02-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Francisco Bay 02-008]
RIN 2115-AA97
 
Safety Zone; North Pacific Ocean, Gulf of the Farallones, 
offshore of San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule; change in effective period.

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

SUMMARY: 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.

DATES: The amendment to Sec. 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.

ADDRESSES: 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ross Sargent, U.S. Coast 
Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, at (510) 437-3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory 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 
Sec. 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

[[Page 49579]]

days 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 deg.40.38' N, 122 deg.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.

Regulatory Evaluation

    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.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 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).

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 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

[[Page 49580]]

minimize 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.

Energy Effects

    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.

Environment

    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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record 
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

Regulation

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
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, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
    2. Revise Sec. 165.T11-082 to read as follows:

Sec. 165.T11-082  Safety Zone: North Pacific Ocean, Gulf of the 
Farallones, offshore of San Francisco, CA.

* * * * *
    (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

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.