[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21065-21067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8866]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[CGD08-03-039]
RIN 1625-AA78
Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf Facility in the Gulf of
Mexico for Mississippi Canyon 474
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around a
petroleum and gas production facility in Mississippi Canyon 474 ``A''
of the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico while the facility
is being constructed and after the construction is completed. The
construction site and facility need to be protected from vessels
operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways, and
placing a safety zone around this area will significantly reduce the
threat of allisions, oil spills and releases of natural gas. This rule
prohibits all vessels from entering or remaining in the specified area
around the facility's location except for attending vessels, vessels
under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing, or vessels
authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 20, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket [CGD08-03-039] and are available for inspection or
copying at Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m), Hale Boggs
Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA, between 8 a.m. and
3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (LT) Kevin Lynn, Project
Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal
Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-
6271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On January 20, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf Facility in the
Gulf of Mexico for Mississippi Canyon 474'' in the Federal Register (69
FR 2694). We received one comment on the proposed rule. No public
hearing was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around a petroleum
and gas production facility in the Gulf of Mexico: Na Kika Floating Oil
and Gas Development System (FDS), Mississippi Canyon 474 ``A'' (MC 474
``A''), located at position 28[deg]31'14.86'' N, 88[deg]17'19.69'' W.
The safety zone will be in effect while the facility is being
constructed and after the construction is completed.
This safety zone is in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico.
For the purposes of this regulation it is considered to be in waters of
304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of
the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of
the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles
from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured.
Navigation in the area of the safety zone consists of large commercial
shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the
occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area of the Gulf of
Mexico also includes an extensive system of fairways. The fairways
nearest the safety zone include the South Pass (Mississippi River) to
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Channel Fairway and Southwest Pass
(Mississippi River) to South Pass (Mississippi River) Safety Fairway.
Significant amounts of vessel traffic occur in or near the various
fairways in the deepwater area.
Shell Exploration and Production Company, hereafter referred to as
``Shell'' requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone in the
Gulf of Mexico around the Na Kika FDS construction site and for the
zone to remain in effect after construction is completed.
The request for the safety zone was made due to the high level of
shipping activity around the site of the facility and the safety
concerns for construction personnel, the personnel on board the
facility after it is completed, and the environment. Shell indicated
that the location, production level, and personnel levels on board the
facility make it highly likely that any allision with the facility
during and after construction would result in a catastrophic event.
The Coast Guard has evaluated Shell's information and concerns
against Eighth Coast Guard District criteria developed to determine if
an Outer Continental Shelf facility qualifies for a safety zone.
Several factors were considered to determine the necessity of a safety
zone for the Na Kika FDS construction site and for a safety zone to
remain in effect after the facility is completed: (1) The construction
site is located approximately 46 nautical miles east-southeast of the
South Pass (Mississippi River) to Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Channel
Fairway and Southwest Pass (Mississippi River) to South Pass
(Mississippi River) Safety Fairway, (2) the facility will have a high
daily production capacity of petroleum oil and gas; (3) the facility
will be manned; (4) the facility will be a semi-submersible; and (5)
the semi-submersible will be moored by a 16-line permanent mooring
system.
We conclude that the risk of allision to the facility and the
potential for loss of life and damage to the environment resulting from
such an accident during and following the construction of Na Kika FDS
warrants the establishment of this safety zone. The regulation will
significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills and natural
gas releases and increases the safety of life, property, and the
environment in the Gulf of Mexico. This regulation is issued pursuant
to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 U.S.C. 1333 as set out in the authority citation
for 33 CFR part 147.
Discussion of Comment and Changes
We received one comment endorsing the proposed safety zone. The
Coast Guard has made no changes to the provisions of this regulation.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
[[Page 21066]]
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on routine navigation are expected
to be minimal because the safety zone will not overlap any of the
safety fairways within the Gulf of Mexico.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Since the construction site for the Na Kika is located far
offshore, few privately owned fishing vessels and recreational boats/
yachts operate in the area. This rule will not impact an attending
vessel or vessels less than 100 feet in length overall not engaged in
towing. Alternate routes are available for all other vessels impacted
by this rule. Use of an alternate route may cause a vessel to incur a
delay of four to ten minutes in arriving at their destinations
depending on how fast the vessel is traveling. Therefore, the Coast
Guard expects the impact of this regulation on small entities to be
minimal.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1 paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further
environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result
in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA.
A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 147 as follows:
PART 147--SAFETY ZONES
0
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.
0
2. Add Sec. 147.833 to read as follows:
Sec. 147.833 Na Kika FDS Safety Zone.
(a) Description. Na Kika FDS, Mississippi Canyon 474 ``A'' (MC 474
[[Page 21067]]
``A''), located at position 28[deg]31'14.86'' N, 88[deg]17'19.69'' W.
The area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the
structure's outer edge is a safety zone. These coordinates are based
upon [NAD 83].
(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: April 5, 2004.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-8866 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P