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