Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15703 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 147 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0863] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Big Foot TLP, Walker 

Ridge 29, Outer Continental Shelf on 

the Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a 

safety zone around the Big Foot Tension 

Leg Platform (TLP), Walker Ridge 29 on 

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the 

Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the 

safety zone is to protect the facility from 

all vessels operating outside the normal 

shipping channels and fairways that are 

not providing services to or working 

with the facility. Placing a safety zone 

around the facility will significantly 

reduce the threat of allisions, collisions, 

security breaches, oil spills, 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 April 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2014–0863 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries 

accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except federal 

holidays. The telephone number is 202– 

366–9329. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. To avoid duplication, please 

use only one of these four methods. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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, 

rusty.h.wright@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Cheryl F. 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

A. 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. 

1. Submitting Comments 

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 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, 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 email 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, type the 

docket number [USCG–2014–0863] in 

the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ on the line associated with 

this rulemaking. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 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. 

2. 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, type the 

docket number (USCG–2014–0863) in 

the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. 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. 

3. 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). 

4. 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 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. 

B. Basis and Purpose 

Under the authority provided in 14 

U.S.C. 85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1, 33 CFR part 147 

permits the establishment of safety 

zones for facilities located on the OCS 

for the purpose of protecting life, 

property and the marine environment. 

The protections included in a safety 

zone established under 33 CFR part 147 

include promoting safety of life and 

property on the facilities as well as their 

appurtenances and attending vessels 

and also for the adjacent waters located 

in and around each facility. Therefore, 

a safety zone under 33 CFR part 147 

may also include provisions to restrict, 

prevent, or control certain activities, 

including access by vessels or persons 

to maintain safety of life, property and 

the environment. Chevron North 

America requested that the Coast Guard 

establish a safety zone around its facility 

located in the deepwater area of the Gulf 

of Mexico on the OCS. Placing a safety 

zone around this facility will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

15704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

significantly reduce the threat of 

allisions, oil spills, and releases of 

natural gas, and thereby protect the 

safety of life, property, and the 

environment. 

The safety zone proposed by this 

rulemaking is on the OCS in the 

deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico in 

Walker Ridge 29 with a center point at 

N. 26°55′58′′, W. 90°31′12′′. 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 

the 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. 

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

Chevron North America requested 

that the Coast Guard establish a safety 

zone extending 500 meters from each 

point on the Big Foot TLP facility 

structure’s outermost edge. The request 

for the safety zone was made due to 

safety concerns for both the personnel 

aboard the facility, including its 

appurtenances and attending vessels, 

and the environment. Chevron North 

America 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, including those 

vessels providing services to or working 

with the facility, (6) the types of vessels 

navigating in the vicinity of the 

proposed area, both related and 

unrelated to facility operations, 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 

a safety zone of 500 meters around the 

facility. The proposed safety zone 

would restrict all vessels from entering 

into, transiting through, remaining in, or 

anchoring in the safety zone area. 

Vessels attending to, servicing, or 

working with the facility would be 

exempt from the restrictions in this 

proposed rule. This proposed safety 

measure reduces significantly the threat 

of allisions, collisions, oil spills, and 

releases of natural gas and increases the 

safety of life, property, and the 

environment in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Authorization to deviate from this 

proposed rule and transit through the 

safety zone may be requested from the 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District or a designated representative. 

Such deviation requests would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

D. 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 or 

executive orders. 

1. 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, 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 

the Big Foot TLP—on the Outer 

Continental Shelf—and its distance 

from both land and safety fairways. 

Additionally, the area covered by this 

proposed safety zone is limited in scope 

as it would encompass only the waters 

within 500 meters of the outer edges of 

the facility structure. This is the area 

where the facility operates and vessels 

servicing the facility transit and 

maneuver, presenting the area most 

vulnerable to risk of allision or 

collision. Vessels traversing waters near 

the proposed safety zone will be able to 

safely travel around the 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 the 

proposed 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. 

2. Impact on Small Entities 

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 will 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 within the area extending 500 

meters from the outermost edges of the 

Big Foot TLP facility structure located 

in Walker Ridge 29 on the OCS. 

This safety zone will not have a 

significant economic impact or a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: Vessel traffic can 

pass safely around the safety zone using 

alternate routes. Based on the limited 

scope of the safety zone, any delay 

resulting from using an alternate route 

is expected to be minimal depending on 

vessel traffic and speed in the area. 

Additionally, exceptions to this 

proposed rule include vessels 

measuring less than 100 feet in length 

overall and not engaged in towing. 

Deviation to transit through the 

proposed 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. 

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. 

3. 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. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please submit a comment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15705 

(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you 

think it qualifies and how and to what 

degree this rule would economically 

affect it. 

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. 

4. 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.). 

5. Federalism 

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 does 

not have implications for federalism. 

6. 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. 

7. 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. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would 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. 

9. 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. 

10. Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks 

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. 

11. 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. 

12. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. 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. This proposed 

rule involves the establishment of a 

safety zone around an OCS facility to 

protect life, property and the marine 

environment. This proposed rule is 

categorical excluded from further 

review, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction. 

A preliminary environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and the 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. 

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 § 147.861 to read as follows: 

§ 147.861 Big Foot Tension Leg Platform 

(TLP) Facility Safety Zone. 

(a) Description. The Big Foot TLP is 

in the deepwater area of the Gulf of 

Mexico at Walker Ridge 29. The facility 

is located at N. 26°55′58′′, W. 90°31′12′′, 

and the area within 500 meters (1640.4 

feet) from each point on the facility 

structure’s outer edge is 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 or a designated representative. 

Dated: February 11, 2015. 

Kevin S. Cook, 

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

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06482 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2014–1069] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zones Within the Captain of the 

Port New Orleans Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

temporary safety zones for multiple 

locations and dates within the Captain 

of the Port New Orleans’ zone. These 

safety zones are necessary to protect 

persons and vessels from potential 

safety hazards associated with fireworks 

displays on or over federal waterways. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS