42612 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

August 17, 2009. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–20281 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 147 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0571] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; BW PIONEER at Walker 

Ridge 249, Outer Continental Shelf 

FPSO, Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a 

safety zone around the BW PIONEER, a 

Floating Production, Storage and 

Offloading (FPSO) system, at Walker 

Ridge 249 on the Outer Continental 

Shelf. The purpose of the safety zone is 

to protect the FPSO from vessels 

operating outside the normal shipping 

channels and fairways. Placing a safety 

zone around the FPSO 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. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before October 23, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0571 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Dr. Madeleine 

McNamara, U.S. Coast Guard, District 

Eight Waterways Management 

Coordinator; telephone 504–671–2103, 

madeleine.w.mcnamara @uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0571), 

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 (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2009–0571’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 8 by 11 

inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box, insert USCG–2009– 

0571 and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

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 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one by using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one 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 proposed safety zone is in the 

deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico in 

Walker Ridge 249 with a center point at 

26°41′46.25′′ N and 090°30′30.16′′ W. 

For the purpose of this regulation, 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). 

The United States EEZ extends from the 

baseline up to 200 nautical miles and is 

contiguous to the territorial sea of the 

United States. Navigation in the vicinity 

of the safety zone consists of large 

commercial shipping vessels, fishing 

vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42613 

the occasional recreational vessel. The 

deepwater area also includes an 

extensive system of fairways. 

Petrobras America Inc. requested that 

the Coast Guard establish a safety zone 

around the FPSO BW PIONEER, which 

is a ship-shaped offshore production 

facility that stores crude oil in tanks 

located in its hull. It will attach to a 

moored turret buoy and move in a 360 

degree arc around the position 

26°41′46.25′′ N and 090°30′30.16′′ W. 

The turret buoy is detachable which 

allows the FPSO to disconnect while the 

buoy and turret drop below the water’s 

surface to a predetermined depth. The 

FPSO has a capacity for storing 500,000 

barrels of produced oil and is expected 

to be offloaded on a weekly basis via a 

floating hose that connects the FPSO to 

a shuttle tanker. During offloading 

operations, a shuttle tanker will connect 

its bow to the FPSO BW PIONEER and 

its stern to an attendant tug that will 

assist with safety spacing and stability 

of the operations. The facility is manned 

with a crew of 80 people. 

The request for the safety zone was 

made due to safety concerns for both the 

personnel aboard the facility and the 

environment. Petrobras America Inc. 

indicated that it is highly likely that any 

allision with the facility would result in 

a catastrophic event. In evaluating this 

request, the Coast Guard explored 

relevant safety factors and considered 

several criteria, including but not 

limited to: (1) The level of shipping 

activity around the facility; (2) safety 

concerns for personnel aboard the 

facility; (3) concerns for the 

environment; (4) the likeliness that an 

allision would result in a catastrophic 

event based on proximity to shipping 

fairways, offloading operations, 

production levels, and size of the crew; 

(5) the volume of traffic in the vicinity 

of the proposed area; (6) the types of 

vessels navigating in the vicinity of the 

proposed area; and, (7) the structural 

configuration of the facility. 

Results from a thorough and 

comprehensive examination of the 

criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing 

regulations warrant the establishment of 

the proposed safety zone. The proposed 

regulation would 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 the zone unless 

specifically authorized by the 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

safety zone of 500 meters around the 

stern of the FPSO when it is moored to 

the turret buoy. The FPSO can swing in 

a 360 degree arc around the center point 

at 26°41′46.25′′ N and 090°30′30.16′′ W. 

If the FPSO detaches from the turret 

buoy, the safety zone of 500 meters will 

be measured from the center point. 

Entry into this zone is prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District or a designated representative. 

They may be contacted on VHF–FM 

Channel 13 or 16 or by telephone at 

(504) 589–6225. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

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. 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action due to the location of 

the FPSO BW PIONEER on the Outer 

Continental Shelf and its distance from 

both land and safety fairways. Vessels 

traversing waters near the proposed 

safety zone will be able to safely travel 

around the zone without incurring 

additional costs. 

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 vessels intending to transit 

or anchor in Walker Ridge block 249. 

This safety zone will not have a 

significant economic impact or a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: This rule will 

enforce a safety zone around a FPSO 

facility that is in an area of the Gulf of 

Mexico not frequented by vessel traffic 

and is not in close proximity to a safety 

fairway. Further, vessel traffic can pass 

safely around the safety zone without 

incurring additional costs. 

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. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

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 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 Dr. 

Madeleine McNamara, U.S. Coast 

Guard, District Eight Waterways 

Management Coordinator; telephone 

504–671–2103, 

madeleine.w.mcnamara@uscg.mil. 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. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42614 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. 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. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

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 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147 

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: 

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 § 147.847 to read as follows: 

§ 147.847 BW PIONEER Floating 

Production, Storage, and Offloading System 

Safety Zone. 

(a) Description. The BW PIONEER, a 

Floating Production, Storage and 

Offloading (FPSO) system, is in the 

deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico at 

Walker Ridge 249. The FPSO can swing 

in a 360 degree arc around the center 

point of the turret buoy’s swing circle at 

26°41′46.25′′ N and 090°30′30.16′′ W. 

The area within 500 meters (1,640.4 

feet) around the stern of the FPSO when 

it is moored to the turret buoy is a safety 

zone. If the FPSO detaches from the 

turret buoy, the area within 500 meters 

around the center point at 26°41′46.25′′ 

N and 090°30′30.16′′ W will be a safety 

zone. 

(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: July 31, 2009. 

Mary E. Landry, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–20246 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0725] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Private Fireworks Show, 

Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

establishing a safety zone on 

Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of the 

Virginia Beach Resort and Conference 

Center in Virginia Beach, VA in support 

of a private fireworks show. This action 

is intended to restrict access to the 

specified portion of Chesapeake Bay to 

protect the public from the hazards 

associated with fireworks displays. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before September 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0725 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1