
[Federal Register: October 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 55136-55138]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27oc09-13]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1051]
RIN 1625-AA00

 
Safety Zone; Perdido Regional Host Outer Continental Shelf 
Platform, Gulf of Mexico

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around the 
Perdido Regional Host (PRH), a high-production, manned oil and natural 
gas platform. The platform needs to be protected from vessels operating 
outside the normal shipping channels and fairways. Placing a safety 
zone around the platform 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: This rule is effective November 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-1051 and are available online 
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2008-1051 in the 
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also 
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

[[Page 55137]]

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 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 the 
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 
telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information

    On February 13, 2009, we published an interim rule with a request 
for comments entitled, ``Safety Zone; Perdido Regional Host Outer 
Continental Shelf Platform in the Gulf of Mexico'' in the Federal 
Register (74 FR 7181). We received no comments on the interim rule.

Background and Purpose

    The safety zone established by this regulation is in the deepwater 
area of the Gulf of Mexico, located at 26[deg]07'44'' N, 
094[deg]53'53'' W in Alaminos Canyon block 857. For the purposes 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), which is contiguous to the territorial 
sea of the United States, and extends up to 200 nautical miles from the 
baseline from which the breadth of the territorial 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 also includes an 
extensive system of fairways.
    Shell Offshore, Inc. requested that the Coast Guard establish a 
safety zone around the Perdido Regional Host. The request for the 
safety zone was made due to the safety concerns for both the personnel 
aboard the platforms and the environment. Shell Offshore, Inc. 
indicated that the location, production level, and personnel levels on 
board the platform makes it highly likely that any allision with the 
platform would result in a catastrophic event. Perdido Regional Host is 
a high production oil and gas drilling platform producing approximately 
100,000 barrels of oil per day and 200 million standard cubic feet of 
gas per day; it is manned with a crew of approximately 150 people.
    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 a safety zone of 500 meters around Perdido Regional 
Host at 26[deg]07'44'' N, 094[deg]53'53'' W.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received no comments in response to the interim rule.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 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 
distance of the Perdido Regional Host from both land and safety 
fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the safety zone will be able 
to safely travel around the zone without incurring additional cost.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), 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-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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be 
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit 
or anchor in Alaminos Canyon block 857. This safety zone will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
for the following reasons: (1) This rule will enforce a safety zone 
around a production platform that is in an area of the Gulf of Mexico 
not typically frequented by vessel traffic; (2) this rule will enforce 
a safety zone that is not in close proximity to a safety fairway; and, 
(3) vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone without 
incurring additional costs.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the interim rule we offered 
to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could 
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking 
process.
    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.

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.

[[Page 55138]]

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 an expenditure, we 
do 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.

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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually 
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 
(34)(g), of the Instruction, because the rule establishes a safety 
zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are will be 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. 1070.1.


0
2. Revise Sec.  147.845 to read as follows:


Sec.  147.845  Perdido Regional Host safety zone.

    (a) Description. The Perdido Regional Host is located at position 
26[deg]07'44'' N, 094[deg]53'53'' W. The area within 500 meters (1640.4 
feet) from each point on the 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: September 8, 2009.
Mary E. Landry,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-25595 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
