
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15703-15705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06482]



[[Page 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 8\1/2\ 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

[[Page 15704]]

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[deg]55'58'', W. 90[deg]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

[[Page 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

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.  147.861 to read as follows:


Sec.  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[deg]55'58'', W. 90[deg]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


