Consolidation of Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection for Outer Continental Shelf Activities; Eighth Coast Guard District; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming Amendments, 20159-20163 [2015-08533]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20159
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN
TERMINATED SINGLE–EMPLOYER
PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 4022
continues to read as follows:
■
Rate set
Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum
Interest Rates For PBGC Payments
2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set
259, as set forth below, is added to the
table.
*
■
For plans with a valuation
date
On or after
*
259 ....................................
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b,
1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Before
*
3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set
259, as set forth below, is added to the
table.
■
*
259 ....................................
*
For plans with a valuation
date
On or after
Before
*
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
i2
i1
*
4.00
*
*
[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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Apr 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
n2
*
7
8
Deferred annuities
(percent)
Immediate
annuity rate
(percent)
i2
i1
*
0.75
This rule is effective May 1,
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 https://
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
i3
*
4.00
ADDRESSES:
33 CFR Parts 3 and 141
n1
*
2015.
Coast Guard
*
*
4.00
4.00
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:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
i3
*
0.75
*
6–1–15
5–1–15
*
Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum
Interest Rates For Private-Sector
Payments
*
Rate set
*
Deferred annuities
(percent)
Immediate
annuity rate
(percent)
*
6–1–15
5–1–15
*
Sfmt 4700
4.00
n1
*
4.00
n2
*
7
8
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,
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Apr 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Apr 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20161
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
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
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).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Apr 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0222]
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Piscataqua River, Kittery, ME
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
■
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Apr 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 https://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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20163
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20159-20163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08533]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-
substantive 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 https://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
Sec. 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,
[[Page 20160]]
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 re-establish 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
[[Page 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 non-substantive; 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-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.
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
[[Page 20162]]
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:
0
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
0
2. Add Sec. 3.40-5 to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 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.
Sec. Sec. 3.40-10, 3.40-15, 3.40-28, 3.40-35, 3.40-40, 3.40-60, 3.40-
65 [Amended]
0
3. Add the words the words ``Subject to the overriding provisions of
Sec. 3.40-5,'' in the following places:
0
a. In Sec. 3.40-10, at the beginning of the second sentence;
0
b. In Sec. Sec. 3.40-15 and 3.40-28, at the beginning of the first
sentence in paragraph (a);
0
c. In Sec. Sec. 3.40-35, 3.40-40, and 3.40-60 at the beginning of the
second sentence; and
0
d. In Sec. 3.40-65, at the beginning of the first sentence in
paragraph (a).
PART 141--PERSONNEL
0
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).
0
5. In Sec. 141.15, redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (c)(1) and
add paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 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
