[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22946-22948]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0154]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend several permanent safety
zones located in the Captain of the Port San Francisco zone that are
established to protect public safety during annual firework displays.
These amendments will update listed events to accurately reflect the
firework display locations. This proposed rulemaking would limit the
movement of vessels within the established firework display areas
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) 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 May 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0154 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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 Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina
Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard is conducting this rulemaking under the authority
of 33 U.S.C. 1231. Fireworks displays are held annually on a recurring
basis on the navigable waters within the COTP San Francisco zone. Three
of the annual fireworks events that require safety zones do not
currently reflect the accurate location of the respective display
sites. These safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of
the crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels,
and other users and vessels of the waterway from the hazards associated
with firework displays. The effect of these proposed safety zones will
be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the events, from
the start of each event until the conclusion of that event. Except for
the persons or vessels authorized by the COTP San Francisco or a
designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
the regulated area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and
vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks displays to ensure the
safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard has reviewed 33 CFR 165.1191for accuracy. The Coast
Guard is proposing to amend Table 1 in Sec.  1191 to update three
events to reflect the current event locations. These events are listed
numerically in Table 1 of this section: (7), (8), (22). The display
locations currently listed have been deemed undesirable or hazardous by
the event sponsors. The COTP San Francisco has determined that
potential hazards associated with the current fireworks locations would
be a safety concern for event crew, spectators, participants of the
event, participating vessels, and other users and vessels of the
waterway. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

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 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. 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.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of each safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around each safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the COTP San Francisco zone for less
than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Local Notice to Mariner and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the
zones.

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.
    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 contact 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, 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
zones lasting less than 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 1,000
feet of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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 contact 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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact 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 http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site'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 proposes
to amend to 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

33 CFR PART 165--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    In Sec.  165.1191, in Table 1 to Sec.  165.1191, revise items 7, 8,
and 22, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1191  Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual
Fireworks Events.

* * * * *

                       Table 1 to Sec.   165.1191
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               7. San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  The City of San Francisco.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  July 4th.
Location 1........................  A barge located approximately 1000
                                     feet off San Francisco Pier 39 at
                                     approximately 37[deg]48'49'' N.,
                                     122[deg]24'46'' W.
Location 2........................  A barge located at the end of the
                                     San Francisco Municipal Pier at
                                     Aquatic Park at approximately
                                     37[deg]48'39'' N., 122[deg]25'37''
                                     W.
Regulated Area 1..................  1. 100-foot radius around the
                                     fireworks barge during the loading,
                                     transit, setup, and until the
                                     commencement of the scheduled
                                     display. Increases to a 1,000-foot
                                     radius upon commencement of the
                                     fireworks display.
Regulated Area 2..................  2. 100-foot radius around the
                                     fireworks barge during the loading,
                                     transit, setup, and until the
                                     commencement of the scheduled
                                     display. Increases to a 1,000-foot
                                     radius upon commencement of the
                                     fireworks display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              8. Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Berkeley Marina.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  July 4th.
Location..........................  A barge located near Berkeley Pier
                                     at approximately 37[deg]51'40'' N.,
                                     122[deg]19'19'' W.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                     barge during the loading, transit,
                                     setup, and until the commencement
                                     of the scheduled display. Increases
                                     to a 1,000-foot radius upon
                                     commencement of the fireworks
                                     display.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     22. Monte Foundation Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Monte Foundation Fireworks.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  Second Saturday in October.
Location..........................  Capitola Pier in Capitola, CA.
Regulated Area....................  1,000-foot safety zone around the
                                     navigable waters of the Capitola
                                     Pier.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 11, 2016
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2016-09030 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule Dave

Please see the answers embedded after your questions and I will try again to contact you to discuss. Debbi Question: Thank you for your response to my questions. Regarding the Excel workbooks you referenced, we have not had the opportunity to access them. However, when we divide the stage mortality by the number of days in a stage ( reported in literature), we cannot duplicate the daily mortality rates. So this is still a puzzle.

EPA Answer: As indicated in the previous email, the EXCEL workbooks for the Ohio facilities ( available in the docket on the CD ROM at DCN # 4 1305) provide details on the data inputs and sources for these calculations. Please note that in cases where stage specific mortality rates were not available ( i. e., larval and age 0+ survival rates of bluntnose minnow, logperch, muskellunge, paddlefish, and skipjack herring) stage specific rates were calculated according to Equation 1 presented in Section A5 2.3 of Chapter A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

Question: Your response regarding EPA's use of the Salem data is also puzzling. We don't understand how you could indicate that the Salem data were used " in a few limited cases" when in fact the majority of egg and larval natural mortality rates listed in the Ohio River Case Study Appendix C1 are referenced to the Salem 316( b) report.

EPA Answer: Due to a clerical error, some of the tables in Appendix C1 cite PSEG 1999 as the source of rates of survival from egg to larvae. In fact, when survival from egg to larvae was not available, Stratus Consulting estimated that 1 in 10 eggs hatch. This follows the precedent in Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977, Supplemental Assessment in Support of the 316 Demonstration, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, Boston Edison Company. September. Boston, MA. Thus, the reference " PSEG ( 1999c)" in Table C1 2, Table C1 4 to Table C1 11, Table C1 13, Table C1 14, and Table C1 16 of Appendix C1 should be replaced by the Stone & Webster citation. Again, please see the EXCEL workbooks for the Ohio facilities available in the docket on the CD ROM at DCN # 4 1305 for a complete listing of data sources.

Question: A PSE& G representative suggested to us that EPA may have used their " Average Stage Survivals used for Non RIS Species" ( Appendix F 4 Table 9 of PSE& G [ 1999]) as surrogates for many of the Ohio River species. Can you confirm that?

EPA Answer: Only the mortality rates of striped bass and the egg to larvae mortality rate of yellow perch were taken from PSEG ( 1999).