Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 20159 

PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN 

TERMINATED SINGLE–EMPLOYER 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4022 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 

1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 

■ 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 

259, as set forth below, is added to the 

table. 

Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum 

Interest Rates For PBGC Payments 

* * * * * 

Rate set 

For plans with a valuation 

date Immediate 

annuity rate 

(percent) 

Deferred annuities 

(percent) 

On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

*******

259 .................................... 5–1–15 6–1–15 0.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 

■ 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 

259, as set forth below, is added to the 

table. 

Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum 

Interest Rates For Private-Sector 

Payments 

* * * * * 

Rate set 

For plans with a valuation 

date Immediate 

annuity rate 

(percent) 

Deferred annuities 

(percent) 

On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

*******

259 .................................... 5–1–15 6–1–15 0.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 7th day 

of April 2015. 

Judith Starr, 

General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08636 Filed 4–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 3 and 141 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0491] 

RIN 1625–AB88 

Consolidation of Officer in Charge, 

Marine Inspection for Outer 

Continental Shelf Activities; Eighth 

Coast Guard District; Technical, 

Organizational, and Conforming 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a 

final rule establishing a consolidated 

Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

(OCMI) for the purposes of inspecting 

mobile offshore drilling units, and fixed 

and floating facilities, engaged in OCS 

activities in the Eighth Coast Guard 

District. This final rule also addresses 

comments submitted in response to our 

notice and request for comments related 

to the consolidation of the OCMI, for 

OCS activities, and makes other nonsubstantive changes. This rule will have 

no substantive effect on the regulated 

public. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 1, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket, are part of docket USCG–2013– 

0491 and are available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, Washington, DC 20590, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also view the docket on the 

Internet by going to http://

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2013–0491 in the ‘‘Search’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Commander Steven Keel, U.S. 

Coast Guard Headquarters, Office of 

Commercial Vessel Compliance; 

telephone (202) 372–1230, email 

steven.r.keel@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Cheryl 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History and Information 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Discussion of Comments Received 

V. Discussion of the Rule 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Business 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive Order 

FR Federal Register 

NCOE National Center of Expertise 

OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

Pub. L. Public Law 

§ Section Symbol 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Regulatory History and Information 

This rule reflects the internal 

organization of the Coast Guard’s Eighth 

District, and affects administrative 

procedures such as contact information. 

It is a rule of agency organization, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

procedure, and practice within the 

meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and 

under that section no prior notice or 

opportunity to comment is required. 

Also, the Coast Guard finds for good 

cause that notice and comment 

procedures are unnecessary under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because this final rule 

consists only of administrative, 

organizational, and conforming 

amendments that will have no 

substantive effect on the public. 

Therefore, we did not publish a notice 

of proposed rulemaking for this final 

rule, although we did provide for public 

comment as described below. 

Because this is a rule of internal 

agency organization with no substantive 

impact on the public, we find that good 

cause exists under 5 U.S.C. (d)(3) for 

making this final rule effective 

immediately upon the date specified in 

the DATES section above. 

On August 7, 2013 we published a 

notice and request for comments (78 FR 

48180) informing the public that the 

Eighth Coast Guard District in New 

Orleans was considering consolidating 

its OCS marine inspection function from 

six offices to one and invited public 

comment on making such a change. The 

duties of an OCMI are found in 33 CFR 

1.01–20 and include inspection of 

vessels in order to determine that they 

comply with the applicable laws, rules, 

and regulations relating to safe 

construction, equipment, manning, and 

operation and that they are in a 

seaworthy condition for the services in 

which they are operated. Currently, the 

six OCMI field offices in the Eighth 

District that handle OCS matters are 

located in the following cities: Mobile, 

Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; 

Morgan City, Louisiana; Port Arthur, 

Texas; Houston, Texas, and Corpus 

Christi, Texas. 

In addition to requesting comments 

on the efficacy of combining the OCS 

OCMI function, the request offered four 

different ways in which the 

consolidated Eighth District OCS OCMI 

could be established using the existing 

organizational structure of the Eighth 

District. We also asked for comments on 

which city a consolidated Eighth 

District OCS OCMI should be physically 

located. 

With input received in response to 

our request, we have decided to 

consolidate OCMI functions for the 

purposes of inspecting fixed and 

floating facilities, and mobile offshore 

drilling units (MODUs), in the Eighth 

Coast Guard District, into a single OCMI 

that will serve as the Chief, Outer 

Continental Shelf Division, on the 

Eighth District staff (hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘Eighth District OCS OCMI’’). For 

simplicity, we have included every 

Eighth District Marine Inspection Zone 

defined in Title 33, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 3, Subpart 3.40 in the 

consolidation even though offshore 

inspections are not usually carried out 

in the inland rivers. 

III. Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis for this rule is 

provided by 14 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 92 

and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(23). 

Section 92 authorizes the Secretary of 

DHS to ‘‘establish, change the limits of, 

consolidate, discontinue, and reestablish Coast Guard districts’’ and ‘‘do 

any and all things necessary to carry out 

the purposes of’’ title 14, pertaining to 

the Coast Guard. The DHS Delegation 

delegates the Secretary’s functions to 

the Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

The purpose of this rule is to make 

conforming amendments and technical 

corrections specific to agency 

organization, procedure, and practice. 

These conforming amendments and 

technical corrections consolidate the 

existing individual OCMI authorities 

currently within the Eighth Coast Guard 

District into a single OCMI authority. 

IV. Discussion of Comments Received 

We received 12 comments on the 

docket addressing the specific questions 

raised in the request for comments and 

we also received additional comments 

beyond the scope of those questions. No 

adverse or opposing comments were 

made and 11 comments expressed 

support for consolidation. An analysis 

of those comments is as follows: 

a. Should the OCMI function be 

consolidated? Of the 12 comments 

received, 11 supported the 

consolidation and one did not comment 

on this question. The reasons cited for 

supporting the consolidation included 

the belief that doing so would make 

more efficient use of inspection 

personnel and provide more consistency 

since decisions affecting the regulated 

industry would be made by one OCMI 

instead of six. Additionally, several 

commenters suggested that 

consolidation be carried out as promptly 

as possible, and three responses 

suggested that proper staffing would be 

critical to the success of the 

consolidated Eighth District OCMI. 

b. Where should the consolidated 

Eighth District OCMI be placed in the 

organization? Seven commenters made 

recommendations related to location 

and the remainder had none. The 

majority recommended that the 

consolidated Eighth District OCS OCMI 

be located in Houston, Texas or New 

Orleans, Louisiana and one commenter 

recommended Morgan City or Houma, 

Louisiana. One commenter suggested 

that desirability of the location should 

be taken into consideration to encourage 

recruitment and retention. The Coast 

Guard is opting to establish the Eighth 

District OCS OCMI as a staff element of 

the Eighth District, in New Orleans, 

Louisiana. We believe this provides the 

most efficient means of consolidation 

and places the Eighth District OCS 

OCMI in close proximity with the 

Eighth District Commander, increasing 

the visibility of the OCS inspection 

mission. 

c. Other comments: In addition to 

providing responses to the questions we 

asked in the notice, several commenters 

provided concerns and 

recommendations should the OCMI 

function be consolidated. Several 

commenters expressed concern that the 

success of an Eighth District OCS OCMI 

would depend on proper staffing levels. 

We agree. Workforce capacity was taken 

into consideration when determining 

whether to consolidate the OCS 

function or not. Our workload analysis 

of the Eighth District OCS OCMI model 

identified a gain in labor efficiency 

equivalent to hiring 1.5 new full time 

employees creating more workload 

capacity with existing inspectors. 

Through consolidation, qualified marine 

inspectors from each of the six current 

OCMI staffs have been designated as 

dedicated OCS inspectors under the 

new Eighth District OCS OCMI with 

OCS inspection as their primary duty. 

We believe that focusing a core capacity 

of OCS inspectors will improve service 

delivery to the regulated industry. 

Additionally, we will continue to 

analyze workload levels for OCS 

inspection activities and make 

workforce adjustments as necessary. 

Some comments also expressed 

concern for OCS marine inspector 

proficiency. We believe that overall 

proficiency under the Eighth District 

OCS OCMI will improve for two 

reasons. First, the consolidation will 

facilitate movement of OCS inspectors 

within the Eighth District between the 

MI zones that existed before the 

consolidation to either meet spot 

workloads or gain experience more 

quickly than they otherwise would 

have. Second, the Eighth District OCS 

OCMI can serve as a single champion 

for all OCS inspectors in the District and 

will be better placed to track and 

improve their proficiency development. 

One commenter also recommended 

longer tour lengths for active duty OCS 

inspectors and perhaps the addition of 

more long term civilian OCS inspectors 

to improve proficiency. We agree with 

this comment and are considering its 

potential future adoption. One 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 20161 

commenter suggested that OCS marine 

inspector proficiency could be 

improved by using only Coast Guard 

civilian personnel who do not serve 

tours like military personnel who 

regularly rotate out once their tour is up. 

We believe using active duty military 

personnel provides long term benefits to 

the Coast Guard by forming future 

leaders who will serve in Headquarters 

where important program decisions 

impacting the offshore energy sector are 

made. 

One commenter suggested that the 

OCS National Center of Expertise 

(NCOE) be consolidated into the Eighth 

District OCS OCMI. We do not intend to 

do so at this time. The NCOE is a Coast 

Guard Headquarters unit that focuses on 

programmatic issues such as policy and 

standardized training development. We 

believe that their current position in the 

organization is better aligned with 

achieving those goals than it would be 

if moved into the OCS OCMI 

organization within the Eighth District. 

One commenter was uncertain as to 

which office would be responsible for 

conducting marine casualty 

investigations for reportable incidents 

occurring offshore. The Eighth District 

OCS OCMI will be responsible for 

investigating marine casualties on fixed 

and floating OCS facilities, and MODUs 

in the Eighth Coast Guard District. 

One commenter expressed confusion 

over which vessels and facilities the 

Eighth District OCS OCMI would be 

responsible for inspecting. The Eighth 

District OCS OCMI will be responsible 

for inspecting a specific fleet of fixed or 

floating OCS facilities or mobile 

offshore drilling units defined in 33 CFR 

140.10. Any other vessel or OCS unit 

type will continue to be inspected by 

the OCMI described in 33 CFR part 3.40 

as stated prior to the consolidation. For 

example, a well intervention vessel that 

is not certificated as a mobile offshore 

drilling unit will continue to be 

inspected by the cognizant Sector or 

Marine Safety Unit OCMI. 

Vessels and facilities overseen by the 

Eighth District OCS OCMI are fleet 

specific; any vessel meeting the 

description above will fall under the 

purview of the Eighth District OCS 

OCMI regardless of where in the Eighth 

Coast Guard District it may be located. 

One commenter observed that the 

consolidation of the OCMI function 

fulfills a recommendation of the Coast 

Guard’s Report of Investigation in the 

Circumstances Surrounding the 

Explosion, Fire, Sinking, and Loss of 

Eleven Crew Members Aboard the 

Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit 

DEEPWATER HORIZON in the Gulf of 

Mexico April 20–22, 2010 (Volume I 

pages 110–111). 

One commenter positively noted that 

the plan to consolidate the Eighth 

District OCS OCMI function could be 

accomplished in a resource neutral way 

thus gaining efficiency with no 

additional government expense. 

V. Discussion of the Rule 

As discussed in Section II above, this 

rule constitutes a non-substantive 

organization change. Beginning May 1, 

2015, vessels meeting the description 

set out by this rulemaking will apply to 

the Eighth District OCS OCMI for 

required inspections instead of the 

Sector OCMIs as was previously the 

case. The Eighth District OCS OCMI will 

also carry out other traditional OCMI 

activities such as inspection of damage 

and repairs, as well as unannounced 

inspections. This rule also amends 33 

CFR 141.15 to clarify when 

determinations that affect restrictions on 

employment of persons other than 

United States citizens may be made by 

the Eighth District OCS OCMI. To apply 

for an inspection after April 30, 2015, or 

to learn more about the business rules 

of the Eighth District OCS OCMI, please 

visit their Web site at www.uscg.mil/d8/ 

ocsocmi.asp, available beginning on 

April 27, 2015. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders (E.O.s) related to 

rulemaking. Below we summarize our 

analyses based on these statutes or 

E.O.s. 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review 

E.O.s 12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning 

and Review’’) and 13563 (‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’) 

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 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. Two 

additional E.O.s were recently 

published to promote the goals of E.O. 

13563: E.O. 13609 (‘‘Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation’’) 

and E.O. 13610 (‘‘Identifying and 

Reducing Regulatory Burdens’’). E.O. 

13609 targets international regulatory 

cooperation to reduce, eliminate, or 

prevent unnecessary differences in 

regulatory requirements. E.O 13610 

aims to modernize the regulatory 

systems and to reduce unjustified 

regulatory burdens and costs on the 

public. 

The provisions of this final rule are 

administrative, technical, and nonsubstantive; they will have no 

substantive effect on the public and will 

impose no additional costs. This final 

rule consolidates the functions and 

requirements for six existing individual 

OCMI authorities into a single OCMI 

authority within the Eighth Coast Guard 

District known as the Eighth District 

OCS OCMI. OCS units meeting the 

description set out by this rulemaking 

are already required to contact an OCMI 

for mandatory inspections and LODs 

related to citizenship. Under this final 

rule, such vessels will now contact the 

Eighth District OCS OCMI for these 

same requirements rather than applying 

to one of six different OCMIs within the 

Eighth District. Information on applying 

for inspections or receiving an LOD 

from the Eighth District OCS OCMI after 

April 30, 2015, and more about the 

business rules of the Eighth District OCS 

OCMI, may be accessed at 

www.uscg.mil/d8/ocsocmi.asp, which 

will be available beginning on April 27, 

2015. This rule does not establish any 

new regulatory requirements impacting 

the public. Therefore, this final rule is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as 

supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does 

not require an assessment of potential 

costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) 

of E.O. 12866. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

reviewed it under E.O. 12866. 

2. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), rules exempt from 

the notice and comment requirements of 

the Administrative Procedure Act are 

not required to examine the impact of 

the rule on small entities. Nevertheless, 

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-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

There is no cost to this final rule, and 

we do not expect it to have an impact 

on small entities because the provisions 

of this rule will have no substantive 

effect on the public and will impose no 

additional costs. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) 

that this final rule will not have a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 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 consult Mr. Mugo 

Macharia by phone at 202–372–1472 or 

via email at Mugo.Macharia@uscg.mil. 

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). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

4. 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). 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under E.O. 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 rule under that order and have 

determined that it is consistent with the 

fundamental federalism principles and 

preemption requirements described in 

E.O. 13132. 

6. 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 1 year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

7. Taking of Private Property 

This final rule will not cause a taking 

of private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’). 

8. Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

E.O. 12988 (‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’), to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

9. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this final rule 

under E.O. 13045 (‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’). This final 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. 

10. Indian Tribal Governments 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications under E.O. 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. 

11. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this final rule 

under E.O. 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 E.O. 12866 and 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The 

Administrator of OMB’s 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 E.O. 

13211. 

12. Technical Standards 

This final rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

13. Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 concluded 

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 rule is 

categorically excluded under section 

2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraphs (34)(a), (b), 

and (d) of the Instruction. This final rule 

involves regulations that are editorial or 

procedural, or that concern internal 

agency functions or organizations. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket for this final rule 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 3 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

33 CFR Part 141 

Citizenship and naturalization, 

Continental shelf, Employment, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR Chapter I as follows: 

■ 1. The authority for part 3 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92 and 93; Pub. L. 

107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, 

para. 2(23). 

PART 3—COAST GUARD AREAS, 

DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE 

INSPECTION ZONES, AND CAPTAIN 

OF THE PORT ZONES 

■ 2. Add § 3.40–5 to read as follows: 

§ 3.40–5. Eighth District Outer Continental 

Shelf Marine Inspection Zone. 

(a) A separate marine inspection zone, 

with an office located in New Orleans, 

Louisiana, performs the OCMI functions 

defined in 33 CFR 1.01–20 for all 

MODUs and fixed and floating OCS 

facilities, as those terms are defined in 

33 CFR 140.10, engaged in OCS 

activities wherever located in the Eighth 

Coast Guard District. 

(b) Notwithstanding the OCMI 

inspection authority held by Eighth 

Coast Guard District Sector 

Commanders and Marine Safety Unit 

Commanders in § 3.01–1(d), the Chief, 

Outer Continental Shelf Division at the 

Eighth Coast Guard District, shall serve 

as the Officer in Charge, Marine 

Inspection, for this Marine Inspection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 20163 

Zone and shall be known as the Eighth 

District Outer Continental Shelf Officer 

in Charge, Marine Inspection. The 

District Commander resolves any 

conflict between the functions of this 

marine inspection zone and any 

geographically based marine inspection 

zones described in 33 CFR 3.40–10, 

3.40–15, 3.40–28, 3.40–35, 3.40–40, 

3.40–60, or 3.40.65. 

§§ 3.40–10, 3.40–15, 3.40–28, 3.40–35, 3.40– 

40, 3.40–60, 3.40–65 [Amended] 

■ 3. Add the words the words ‘‘Subject 

to the overriding provisions of § 3.40– 

5,’’ in the following places: 

■ a. In § 3.40–10, at the beginning of the 

second sentence; 

■ b. In §§ 3.40–15 and 3.40–28, at the 

beginning of the first sentence in 

paragraph (a); 

■ c. In §§ 3.40–35, 3.40–40, and 3.40–60 

at the beginning of the second sentence; 

and 

■ d. In § 3.40–65, at the beginning of the 

first sentence in paragraph (a). 

PART 141—PERSONNEL 

■ 4. The authority for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1356; 46 U.S.C. 

70105; 49 CFR 1.46(z). 

■ 5. In § 141.15, redesignate paragraph 

(c) as paragraph (c)(1) and add 

paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 141.15 Restrictions on employment. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Determinations in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section for all MODUs and fixed 

and floating OCS facilities, as those 

terms are defined in 33 CFR 140.10, 

operating within the Eighth District 

Outer Continental Shelf Marine 

Inspection Zone will be made by the 

Eighth District Outer Continental Shelf 

Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, as 

defined and described in § 3.40–5 of this 

chapter. 

Dated: April 9, 2015. 

J.C. Burton, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of 

Inspections and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08533 Filed 4–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0222] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Piscataqua River, Kittery, ME 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the Sara M. Long 

Bridge, mile 2.5, across the Piscataqua 

River between Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire and Kittery, Maine. This 

deviation is necessary to facilitate 

bridge construction. This deviation 

allows the secondary draw at the Sara 

M. Long Bridge to remain closed to 

marine traffic during construction. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

May 15, 2015 through October 31, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2015–0222] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, contact Ms. Judy K. LeungYee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard 

District, telephone (212) 514–4330, 

judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone (202) 

366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sara 

M. Long Bridge across the Piscataqua 

River, mile 2.5, between Portsmouth, 

New Hampshire and Kittery, Maine, has 

a vertical clearance in the closed 

position of 8 feet at mean high water 

and 18 feet at mean low water. 

The secondary draw section will 

remain closed during construction. The 

existing bridge operating regulations are 

found at 33 CFR 117.531(c). 

The waterway is transited by seasonal 

recreational vessels and commercial 

vessels of various sizes. 

The bridge owner, Maine Department 

of Transportation, requested a 

temporary deviation from the normal 

operating schedule to facilitate bridge 

construction. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Sara M. Long Bridge secondary draw 

may remain in the closed position from 

May 15, 2015 through October 31, 2015. 

There is an alternate route for vessel 

traffic under the main span of the Sara 

M. Long Bridge. Vessels are advised to 

remain clear of the secondary draw and 

related construction activities during 

this closure. The secondary draw may 

be opened in the event of an emergency. 

The Coast Guard will inform the users 

of the waterways through our Local and 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the 

change in operating schedule for the 

bridges so that vessels can arrange their 

transits to minimize any impact caused 

by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: April 6, 2015. 

C.J. Bisignano, 

Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08660 Filed 4–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2015–0202] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone, Eastern Branch Elizabeth 

River; Norfolk, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone on the 

navigable waters of the Eastern Branch 

of the Elizabeth River in support of the 

Old Dominion University (ODU) versus 

University of Virginia (UVA) Baseball 

Game fireworks event. This safety zone 

will restrict vessel movement in the 

specified area during the fireworks 

display. This action is necessary to 

provide for the safety of life and 

property on the surrounding navigable 

waters during the fireworks display. 

DATES: This rule is effective and 

enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. 

on April 28, 2015. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES