Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish safety zones around four Chevron North America (Chevron) facilities located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. The facilities are as follows: The Jack & St Malo Semi-Sub Facility located in Walker Ridge Block 718; The Petronius Compliant Tower Facility located in Viosca Knoll Block 786; The Blind Faith Semi-Sub Facility located in Mississippi Canyon Block 650; and The Tahiti SPAR Facility located in Green Canyon Block 641.
The purpose of these safety zones is to protect each facility from vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways. Placing a safety zone around each facility will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2013–0874 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight Waterways Management Branch; telephone 504–671–2138,
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
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. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
Under the authority provided in 14 U.S.C. 85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, Title 33, CFR Part 147 permits the establishment of
For the purpose of safety zones established under 33 CFR Part 147, the deepwater area is considered to be waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the vicinity of each safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area also includes an extensive system of fairways.
Each of the proposed safety zones will extend 500 meters from each point on the facility structure's outermost edge. The location of each facility is as follows:
(1) The Jack & St Malo Semi-Sub Facility is located in Walker Ridge Block 718 with a center point at 26°14′5.94″ N 91°15′39.99″ W;
(2) The Petronius Compliant Tower Facility is located in Viosca Knoll Block 786 with a center point at 28°13′44″ N/−87°47′51″ W;
(3) The Blind Faith Semi-Sub Facility is located in Mississippi Canyon Block 650 with a center point at 28°20′29.5279″ N/−88°15′56.4728″ W; and
(4) The Tahiti SPAR Facility is located in Green Canyon Block 641 with a center point at 27°19′33.3″ N/−90°42′50.9″ W.
The requests for these safety zones were made due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the facilities and the environment. Chevron indicated that it is highly likely that any allision with one of these facilities would result in a catastrophic event. In evaluating these requests, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including but not limited to, (1) the level of shipping activity around each facility, (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard each facility, (3) concerns for the environment, (4) the likeliness that an allision would result in a catastrophic event based on each facility's proximity to shipping fairways, offloading operations, and production levels, (5) the volume of traffic in the vicinity of each facility and proposed zone, (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of each facility and proposed zone, and (7) the structural configuration of each facility.
Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of these criteria, International Maritime Organization guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of a safety zone around each facility. The proposed safety zones will reduce significantly the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico by prohibiting entry into each zone unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
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 or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of each facility on the OCS and the distance between each facility and both land and fairways. Vessel traffic can pass safely around each safety zone using alternate routes. Exceptions to this proposed rule include vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in towing. Deviation to transit through each safety zone may be requested. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in; Walker Ridge Block 718; Viosca Knoll Block 786; Mississippi Canyon Block 650; and Green Canyon Block 641.
These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can pass safely around each safety zone using alternate routes. Use of alternate routes may cause minimal delay in reaching a final destination, depending on other traffic in the area and vessel speed. Additionally, exceptions to this proposed rule include vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in towing. And, vessels may request deviation from this proposed rule to transit through each safety zone. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects any impact of this proposed rulemaking establishing safety zones around OCS facilities to be minimal, with no significant economic impact on small entities.
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
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. 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
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
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 determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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.
This proposed rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.
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 will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
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.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
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 (NEPA) (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 the establishment of safety zones around OCS Facilities to protect life, property and the marine environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. Preliminary environmental analysis checklists supporting this determination and Categorical Exclusion Determinations are available in the docket where indicated under
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
(a)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
(a)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
(a)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.