Document ID: USCG-2009-0571-0001
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Rule
Title: NPRM:  Safety Zones: BW PIONEER at Walker Ridge 249, Outer Continental Shelf FPSO, Gulf of Mexico (Federal Register Publication)
Posted Date: 2009-08-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 42612-42614]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24au09-13]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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[deg]41'46.25'' N 
and 090[deg]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

[[Page 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[deg]41'46.25'' N and 090[deg]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[deg]41'46.25'' N and 090[deg]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

[[Page 42614]]

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 Sec.  147.847 to read as follows:

Sec.  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[deg]41'46.25'' N and 090[deg]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[deg]41'46.25'' N and 090[deg]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