6146 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

of the instrument each day by a haircut 

of at least 2 percent.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC on February 4, 

2004, by the Commission. 

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–2752 Filed 2–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 147 

[CGD08–03–028] 

RIN 1625–AA76 

Safety Zone for Outer Continental 

Shelf Facility in the Gulf of Mexico for 

Green Canyon 645

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone around a 

petroleum and gas production facility in 

Green Canyon 645 of the Outer 

Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico 

while the facility is being constructed 

and after the construction is completed. 

The construction site and facility need 

to be protected from vessels operating 

outside the normal shipping channels 

and fairways, and placing a safety zone 

around this area will significantly 

reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills 

and releases of natural gas. This rule 

prohibits all vessels from entering or 

remaining in the specified area around 

the facility’s location except for the 

following: an attending vessel; a vessel 

under 100 feet in length overall not 

engaged in towing; or a vessel 

authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard 

District Commander.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

11, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket (CGD08–03–028) and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District (m), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 

501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA, 

between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant (LT) Kevin Lynn, Project 

Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District 

Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 

501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 

70130, telephone (504) 589–6271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History 

On September 26, 2003, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) entitled ‘‘Safety Zone for Outer 

Continental Shelf Facility in the Gulf of 

Mexico for Green Canyon 645’’ in the 

Federal Register (68 FR 55557). We 

received no comments on the proposed 

rule. No public hearing was requested, 

and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

safety zone around a petroleum and gas 

production facility in the Gulf of 

Mexico: Holstein, Green Canyon Block 

645 (GC 645), located at position 

27°19′17′′ N, 90°32′08′′ W. The safety 

zone will be in effect while the facility 

is being constructed and after the 

construction is completed. 

This safety zone is in the deepwater 

area of the Gulf of Mexico. For the 

purposes of this regulation it is 

considered to be in 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 area of the 

safety zone consists of large commercial 

shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise 

ships, tugs with tows and the occasional 

recreational vessel. The deepwater area 

of the Gulf of Mexico also includes an 

extensive system of fairways. The 

fairways nearest the safety zone include 

the East-West Gulf of Mexico Safety 

Fairway and Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

(LOOP) Shipping Safety Fairway. 

Significant amounts of vessel traffic 

occur in or near the various fairways in 

the deepwater area.

BP Exploration & Production Inc., 

hereafter referred to as ‘‘BP’’ requested 

that the Coast Guard establish a safety 

zone in the Gulf of Mexico around the 

Holstein construction site and for the 

zone to remain in effect after 

construction is completed. 

The request for the safety zone was 

made due to the high level of shipping 

activity around the site of the facility 

and the safety concerns for construction 

personnel, the personnel on board the 

facility after it is completed, and the 

environment. BP indicated that the 

location, production level, and 

personnel levels on board the facility 

make it highly likely that any allision 

with the facility during and after 

construction would result in a 

catastrophic event. 

The Coast Guard has evaluated BP’s 

information and concerns against Eighth 

Coast Guard District criteria developed 

to determine if an Outer Continental 

Shelf facility qualifies for a safety zone. 

We concluded that the risk of allision to 

the facility and the potential for loss of 

life and damage to the environment 

resulting from such an accident during 

and following the construction of 

Holstein warrants the establishment of 

this safety zone. The regulation will 

significantly reduce the threat of 

allisions, oil spills and natural gas 

releases and increase the safety of life, 

property, and the environment in the 

Gulf of Mexico. This regulation is issued 

pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 U.S.C. 

1333 as set out in the authority citation 

for 33 CFR part 147. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

We received no comments on the 

proposed rule. Therefore, we have not 

made any change in the final rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 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 Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

regulatory evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. 

The impacts on routine navigation are 

expected to be minimal because the 

safety zone will not overlap any of the 

safety fairways within the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this 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 rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Since the construction site for the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 6147

Holstein is located far offshore, few 

privately owned fishing vessels and 

recreational boats/yachts operate in the 

area. This rule will not impact an 

attending vessel or vessels less than 100 

feet in length overall not engaged in 

towing. Alternate routes are available 

for all other vessels impacted by this 

rule. Use of an alternate route may cause 

a vessel to incur a delay of four to ten 

minutes in arriving at their destinations 

depending on how fast the vessel is 

traveling. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

expects the impact of this regulation on 

small entities to be minimal. 

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 to what degree this rule 

would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we offered to assist small entities 

in understanding this rule so that they 

can better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. 

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 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 

expenditure, we 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 

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. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1 paragraph (34)(g), of the 

instruction, from further environmental 

documentation because this rule is not 

expected to result in any significant 

environmental impact as described in 

NEPA. 

A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147 

Continental shelf, Marine safety, 

Navigation (water).

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147—SAFETY ZONES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 147 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Add § 147.831 to read as follows:

§ 147.831 Holstein Truss Spar safety zone. 

(a) Description. Holstein, Green 

Canyon 645 (GC 645), located at 

position 27°19′17′′N, 90°32′08′′W. The 

area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) 

from each point on the structure’s outer 

edge is a safety zone. These coordinates 

are based upon North American Datum 

1983. 

(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or 

remain in this safety zone except the 

following: 

(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.

Dated: January 23, 2004. 

R.F. Duncan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–2730 Filed 2–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P