Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf Facility in the Gulf of Mexico for Mississippi Canyon Block 920, 18929-18931 [E7-7186]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules
areas specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of
this section to the extent the ASD(HA),
or designee, determines necessary for
the effective and efficient operation of
the TRDP. These differences may
include, but are not limited to, specific
provisions for preauthorization of care,
varying licensure and certification
requirements for foreign providers, and
other differences based on limitations in
the availability and capabilities of the
Uniformed Services overseas dental
treatment facilities and a particular
nation’s civilian sector providers in
certain areas. The Director, TRICARE
Management Activity shall issue
guidance, as necessary, to implement
the provisions of this paragraph. TRDP
enrollees residing in overseas locations
will be eligible for the same benefits as
enrollees residing in the continental
United States, although dental services
may not be available or accessible in all
locations.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: April 10, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E7–7132 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[CGD08–07–004]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf
Facility in the Gulf of Mexico for
Mississippi Canyon Block 920
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a 500 meter safety zone around
the oil and natural gas production
facility Independence Hub in
Mississippi Canyon Block 920 of the
Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of
Mexico. This safety zone is needed to
protect the crew of the Independence
Hub and vessels operating in the
vicinity of the facility. Vessels are
prohibited from entering this proposed
safety zone with the following
exceptions: an attending vessel; a vessel
under 100 feet in length overall not
engaged in towing; or a vessel
authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard
District Commander.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Apr 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
June 15, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale
Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street,
New Orleans, LA 70130, or comments
and related material may be delivered to
Room 1230 at the same address between
8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is (504) 671–2107.
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District (dpw) maintains the public
docket for this rulemaking. Comments
and material received from the public,
as well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket
and will be available for inspection or
copying at the location listed above
during the noted time periods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doug Blakemore, waterways
management specialist for Eighth Coast
Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs
Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New
Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504)
671–2109.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Requests for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking [CGD08–07–004],
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know they reached us, please enclose
a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change
this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting. However, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District (dpw) at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that a
public meeting would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
a safety zone around the Independence
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18929
Hub facility, an oil and natural gas
production facility in the Gulf of Mexico
in Mississippi Canyon Block 920,
located at position 28.085° N, 87.986°
W. The Independence Hub is an
integrated development of nine gas
fields and consists of a deepdraft,
column-legged, semi-submersible
production platform, a subsea
production infrastructure, connecting
flowlines and a trunk line terminating at
a junction platform in Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana. Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation (Anadarko), the lead
operator of the Independence Hub, has
requested that a safety zone be
established 500 meters around the semisubmersible production platform.
Navigation in the vicinity of the
proposed safety zone consists of large
commercial shipping vessels, fishing
vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and
the occasional recreational vessel.
Significant amounts of vessel traffic
occur in or near the various fairways in
the deepwater area. Information
provided by Anadarko to the Coast
Guard indicates that the location,
production levels, and personnel levels
on board the facility make it highly
likely that any allision with the facility
or its mooring system could result in a
catastrophic event. The proposed rule
would reduce the threat of allisions, oil
spills and natural gas releases and
increase the safety of life, property, and
the environment in the Gulf of Mexico.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed safety zone would
encompass the area within 500 meters
from each point on the Independence
Hub’s structure outer edge. No vessel
would be allowed to enter or remain in
this proposed safety zone except the
following: an attending vessel; a vessel
under 100 feet in length overall not
engaged in towing; or a vessel
authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard
District Commander.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not
significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full regulatory evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on
routine navigation are expected to be
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
18930
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules
minimal because the proposed safety
zone will not overlap any of the safety
fairways within the Gulf of Mexico.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Since the Independence Hub
facility will be located far offshore, few
privately owned fishing vessels and
recreational boats/yachts operate in the
area and alternate routes are available
for those vessels. Therefore, the Coast
Guard expects the impact of this
proposed rule on small entities to be
minimal.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and to what degree this rule
would economically affect it.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
121), we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Doug
Blakemore, waterways management
specialist for Eighth Coast Guard
District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal
Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans,
LA 70130, telephone (504) 671–2109.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Apr 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule will not
result in such expenditure, we discuss
the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed 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 proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that may disproportionately affect
children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We invite your comments on this
proposed rule. This proposed rule might
impact tribal governments, even though
the impact may not constitute a tribal
implication under the rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that Order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1 paragraph (34)(g), of the
instruction, from further environmental
documentation because this rule is not
expected to result in any significant
environmental impact as described in
NEPA.
A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are available
in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether the rule
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules
should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147
Continental shelf, Marine safety,
Water.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
PART 147—SAFETY ZONES
1. The authority citation for part 147
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 147.845 to read as follows:
§ 147.845
Independence Hub safety zone.
(a) Description. The Independence
Hub, Mississippi Canyon Block 920, is
located at position 28.08505611° N,
87.98583917° W. The area within 500
meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on
the structure’s outer edge is a safety
zone. These coordinates are based upon
[NAD 83].
(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or
remain in this safety zone except the
following:
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length
overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District.
Dated: April 5, 2007.
Richard G. Sullivan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th
Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E7–7186 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
fireworks launch barge located at
approximate position 42° 32.650 N, 070°
51.980 W. The safety zone is needed to
protect the maritime public from the
potential hazards posed by a fireworks
display. The safety zone will prohibit
entry into or movement within this
portion of Beverly Harbor during its
effective period.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Sector Boston
427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA.
Sector Boston maintains the public
docket for this rulemaking. Comments
and material received from the public,
as well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket
and will be available for inspection or
copying at Sector Boston, 427
Commercial Street, Boston, MA between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector
Boston, Waterways Management
Division, at (617) 223–5007.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (CGD01–07–008),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related materials in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know that your submission reached
us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We
may change this proposed rule in view
of them.
[CGD1–07–008]
Public Meeting
RIN 1625–AA00
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. You may, however submit a
request for a meeting by writing to
Sector Boston at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.
Safety Zone: Beverly Homecoming
Fireworks, Beverly, MA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes
establishing a temporary safety zone for
the Town of Beverly Homecoming
Fireworks in Beverly, Massachusetts
currently scheduled to occur on August
5, 2007 temporarily closing all navigable
waters of Beverly Harbor within a five
hundred (500) yard radius of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Apr 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
Background and Purpose
This proposed rule establishes a
safety zone on the navigable waters of
Beverly Harbor within a five hundred
(500) yard radius of the fireworks
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18931
launch barge located at approximate
position 42° 32.650 N, 070° 51.980 W.
The safety zone would be in effect from
8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:30 p.m. EDT on
August 5, 2007.
This safety zone would temporarily
prohibit entry into or movement within
the effected portion of Beverly Harbor
and is needed to protect the maritime
public from the potential dangers posed
by a fireworks display.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes
establishing a temporary safety zone in
a portion of Beverly Harbor. The safety
zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m.
EDT until 11:30 p.m. EDT on August 5,
2007. Marine traffic may transit safely
outside of the safety zone during the
event thereby allowing navigation of
Beverly Harbor except for the portion
delineated by this rule. This safety zone
will control vessel traffic during the
fireworks event to protect the safety of
the maritime public.
Due to the limited time frame of the
firework display and because the zone
leaves the majority of Beverly Harbor
open for navigation, the Captain of the
Port anticipates minimal negative
impact on vessel traffic due to this
event. Public notifications will be made
prior to the effective period via local
notice to mariners and marine
information broadcasts.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary.
Although this rule would prevent
vessel traffic from transiting a portion of
Beverly Harbor during the fireworks
event, the effect of this regulation would
not be significant for several reasons:
vessels will be excluded from the
proscribed area for only three hours,
vessels will be able to operate in the
majority of Beverly Harbor during this
time period; and advance notifications
will be made to the local maritime
community by marine information
broadcasts and Local Notice to
Mariners.
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18929-18931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7186]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[CGD08-07-004]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf Facility in the Gulf of
Mexico for Mississippi Canyon Block 920
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a 500 meter safety zone
around the oil and natural gas production facility Independence Hub in
Mississippi Canyon Block 920 of the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf
of Mexico. This safety zone is needed to protect the crew of the
Independence Hub and vessels operating in the vicinity of the facility.
Vessels are prohibited from entering this proposed safety zone with the
following exceptions: an attending vessel; a vessel under 100 feet in
length overall not engaged in towing; or a vessel authorized by the
Eighth Coast Guard District Commander.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 15, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, or comments and related material
may be delivered to Room 1230 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (504) 671-2107. Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw)
maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the location
listed above during the noted time periods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Blakemore, waterways management
specialist for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs
Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone
(504) 671-2109.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Requests for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-07-
004], indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District (dpw) at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone around the
Independence Hub facility, an oil and natural gas production facility
in the Gulf of Mexico in Mississippi Canyon Block 920, located at
position 28.085[deg] N, 87.986[deg] W. The Independence Hub is an
integrated development of nine gas fields and consists of a deepdraft,
column-legged, semi-submersible production platform, a subsea
production infrastructure, connecting flowlines and a trunk line
terminating at a junction platform in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko), the lead operator of the
Independence Hub, has requested that a safety zone be established 500
meters around the semi-submersible production platform.
Navigation in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone consists of
large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs
with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. Significant amounts
of vessel traffic occur in or near the various fairways in the
deepwater area. Information provided by Anadarko to the Coast Guard
indicates that the location, production levels, and personnel levels on
board the facility make it highly likely that any allision with the
facility or its mooring system could result in a catastrophic event.
The proposed rule would reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills and
natural gas releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the
environment in the Gulf of Mexico.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed safety zone would encompass the area within 500 meters
from each point on the Independence Hub's structure outer edge. No
vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in this proposed safety zone
except the following: an attending vessel; a vessel under 100 feet in
length overall not engaged in towing; or a vessel authorized by the
Eighth Coast Guard District Commander.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on routine navigation
are expected to be
[[Page 18930]]
minimal because the proposed safety zone will not overlap any of the
safety fairways within the Gulf of Mexico.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Since the Independence Hub facility will be
located far offshore, few privately owned fishing vessels and
recreational boats/yachts operate in the area and alternate routes are
available for those vessels. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects the
impact of this proposed rule on small entities to be minimal.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Doug Blakemore, waterways
management specialist for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale
Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130,
telephone (504) 671-2109.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such
expenditure, we discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We
invite your comments on this proposed rule. This proposed rule might
impact tribal governments, even though the impact may not constitute a
tribal implication under the rule.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1 paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further
environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result
in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA.
A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be
considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule
[[Page 18931]]
should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Water.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
PART 147--SAFETY ZONES
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add Sec. 147.845 to read as follows:
Sec. 147.845 Independence Hub safety zone.
(a) Description. The Independence Hub, Mississippi Canyon Block
920, is located at position 28.08505611[deg] N, 87.98583917[deg] W. The
area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the structure's
outer edge is a safety zone. These coordinates are based upon [NAD 83].
(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except the following:
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in
towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District.
Dated: April 5, 2007.
Richard G. Sullivan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E7-7186 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P