Safety Zone; Turritella FPSO, Walker Ridge 551, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico, 71940-71942 [2015-29449]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71940
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
to the same ERISA standards and
remedies that apply to any company
offering the same services to employers.
Similarly, a prototype plan or multiple
employer plan program that a state
offers to employers would have to
comply with the same ERISA
requirements and would have to be
subject to the same remedies as any
private party offering such products and
services.17
Even if the state laws enacted to
establish programs of the sort described
above ‘‘reference’’ employee benefit
plans in a literal sense, they should not
be seen as laws that ‘‘relate to’’ ERISA
plans in the sense ERISA section 514(a)
uses that statutory term because they are
completely voluntary from the
employer’s perspective, the state
program would be entirely subject to
ERISA, and state law would not impose
any outside regulatory requirements
beyond ERISA. They do not require
employers to establish ERISA-covered
plans, forbid any type of plan or restrict
employers’ choices with respect to
benefit structures or their
administration. These laws would
merely offer a program that employers
could accept or reject. See Dillingham,
519 U.S. at 325–28.
In addition, none of the state
approaches described above resemble
the state laws that the Court held
preempted in its pre-Travelers
‘‘reference to’’ cases. Those laws
targeted ERISA plans as a class with
affirmative requirements or special
exemptions. See, e.g., District of
Columbia v. Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade,
506 U.S. 125, 128, 129–133 (1992)
(workers’ compensation law that
required employee benefits ‘‘set by
reference to [ERISA] plans’’) (citation
omitted); Ingersoll-Rand Co. v.
McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 135–136, 140
(1990) (common law claim for wrongful
discharge to prevent attainment of
ERISA benefits); Mackey v. Lanier
Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S.
825, 828 & n.2, 829–830 (1988)
(exemption from garnishment statute for
ERISA plans). In the case of the state
actions outlined above, any restriction
on private economic activity arises, not
from state regulatory actions, but from
the application of ERISA requirements
to the plans, service providers, and
investment products, that the state, as
any other private sector participant in
the market, selects in deciding what it
is willing to offer.
17 State laws relating to sovereign immunity for
state governments and their employees would have
to be evaluated carefully to ensure they do not
conflict with ERISA’s remedial provisions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Nov 17, 2015
Jkt 238001
Finally, it is worth noting that even if
the state laws implementing these
approaches ‘‘relate to’’ ERISA plans in
some sense of that term, it is only
because they create or authorize
arrangements that are fully governed by
ERISA’s requirements. By embracing
ERISA in this way, the state would not
on that basis be running afoul of section
514(a) because ERISA fully applies to
the arrangement and there is nothing in
the state law for ERISA to ‘‘supersede.’’
In this regard, section 514(a) of ERISA,
in relevant part, provides that Title I of
ERISA ‘‘shall supersede any and all
state laws insofar as they may now or
hereafter relate to any employee benefit
plan . . . .’’ To the extent that the state
makes plan design decisions in
fashioning its prototype plan or state
sponsored plan, or otherwise adopts
rules necessary to run the plan, those
actions would be the same as any other
prototype plan provider or employer
sponsor of any ERISA-covered plan, and
the arrangement would be fully and
equally subject to ERISA.
This conclusion is supported by the
Department’s position regarding state
governmental participation in ERISA
plans in another context. Pursuant to
section 4(b)(1) of ERISA, the provisions
of Title I of ERISA do not apply to a
plan that a state government establishes
for its own employees, which ERISA
section 3(32) defines as a ‘‘governmental
plan.’’ The Department has long held
the view, however, that if a plan
covering governmental employees fails
to qualify as a governmental plan, it
would still be subject to Title I of
ERISA.18 In these circumstances, the
failure to qualify as a governmental plan
does not prohibit a governmental
employer from providing benefits
through, and making contributions to,
an ERISA-covered employee benefit
plan.19 Thus, the effect of ERISA is not
to prohibit the state from offering
benefits, but rather to make those
benefits subject to ERISA. Here too,
ERISA does not supersede state law to
the extent it merely creates an
arrangement that is fully governed by
ERISA.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. 2015–29427 Filed 11–16–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
18 See,
e.g., Advisory Opinion 2004–04A.
Information Letter to Michael T. Scaraggi
and James M. Steinberg from John J. Canary (April
12, 2004).
19 See
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0318]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Turritella FPSO, Walker
Ridge 551, Outer Continental Shelf on
the Gulf of Mexico
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a safety zone around the
Turritella FPSO system, Walker Ridge
551 on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. The
purpose of the safety zone is to protect
the facility from all vessels operating
outside the normal shipping channels
and fairways that are not providing
services to or working with the facility.
Placing a safety zone around the facility
will significantly reduce the threat of
allisions, collisions, security breaches,
oil spills, releases of natural gas, and
thereby protect the safety of life,
property, and the environment.
DATES: This rule is effective December
18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2015–
0318 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S. Coast
Guard, District Eight Waterways
Management Branch; telephone 504–
671–2138, rusty.h.wright@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Table of Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
FPSO Floating Production Storage
Offloading Vessel
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
USCG United States Coast Guard
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
Shell Exploration & Production
Company requested that the Coast
Guard establish a safety zone around the
Turritella FPSO, which is a ship-shaped
offshore production facility that stores
crude oil in tanks located in its hull. It
will attach to a moored turret buoy and
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
move in a 360 degree arc around the
position 26°25′38.74″ N., 90°48′45.34″
W. The purpose of the safety zone is to
protect the facility from all vessels
operating outside the normal shipping
channels and fairways that are not
providing services to or working with
the facility. Therefore, on July 28, 2015
we published a NPRM with a request for
comments entitled, ‘‘Safety Zones:
Turritella FPSO system, Walker Ridge
551, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf
of Mexico’’ in the Federal Register (80
FR 44910). We received no comments
on the NPRM.
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under the authority in 14 U.S.C. 85, 43
U.S.C. 1333, Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, and 33
CFR part 147, which collectively permit
the establishment of safety zones for
facilities located on the OCS for the
purpose of protecting life, property and
the marine environment.
The Coast Guard has determined that
a safety zone is necessary to protect the
facility from all vessels operating
outside the normal shipping channels
and fairways that are not providing
services to or working with the facility.
The purpose of the rule is to
significantly reduce the threat of
allisions, oil spills, and releases of
natural gas, and thereby protect the
safety of life, property, and the
environment.
For the purpose of safety zones
established under 33 CFR part 147, the
deepwater area is considered to be
waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or
greater depth extending to the limits of
the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
contiguous to the territorial sea of the
United States and extending to a
distance up to 200 nautical miles from
the baseline from which the breadth of
the sea is measured. Navigation in the
vicinity of the safety zone consists of
large commercial shipping vessels,
fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with
tows and the occasional recreational
vessel. The deepwater area also includes
an extensive system of fairways.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes
and the Final Rule
As noted above, we received no
comments on our NPRM published July
28, 2015. There are no changes in the
regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a safety zone
extending 500 meters (1640.4 feet)
around the stern of the FPSO when it is
moored to the turret buoy. If the FPSO
detaches from the turret buoy, the safety
zone of 500 meters (1640.4) will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Nov 17, 2015
Jkt 238001
measured from the center point of the
turret buoy. No vessel, except those
attending the facility, or those less than
100 feet in length and not engaged in
towing will be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining
permission from Commander, Eighth
Coast Guard District or a designated
representative.
V. 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 and
executive orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
it has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action due to the location of
the Turritella FPSO—on the Outer
Continental Shelf—and its distance
from both land and safety fairways.
Vessel traffic can pass safely around the
safety zone using alternate routes.
Exceptions to this rule include vessels
measuring less than 100 feet in length
overall and not engaged in towing.
Deviation to transit through the safety
zone may be requested. Such requests
will be considered on a case-by-case
basis and may be authorized by the
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District or a designated representative.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small
entities during rulemaking. The term
‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard received 0 comments
from the Small Business Administration
on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule would not have a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71941
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the safety
zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above, this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner
or operator.
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. 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 the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
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.
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Government
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.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, because it
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
71942
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you
believe this rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
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;
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
■
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
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
involves the establishment of a safety
zone around an OCS Facility to protect
life, property and the marine
environment. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the
Commandant Instruction. The
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and
Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
2. Add § 147.863 to read as follows:
§ 147.863
Zone.
Turritella FPSO System Safety
(a) Description. The Turritella, a
Floating Production, Storage and
Offloading (FPSO) system is to be
installed in the deepwater area of the
Gulf of Mexico at Walker Ridge 551. The
FPSO can swing in a 360 degree arc
around the center point of the turret
buoy’s swing circle at 26°25′38.74″ N.,
90°48′45.34″ W., and the area within
500 meters (1640.4 feet) around the
stern of the FPSO when it is moored to
the turret buoy is a safety zone. If the
FPSO detaches from the turret buoy, the
area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet)
around the center point at 26°25′38.74″
N., 90°48′45.34″ W. is a safety zone.
(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or
remain in this safety zone except the
following:
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length
overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District.
Dated: October 27, 2015.
David R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015–29449 Filed 11–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0320]
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
G. Protest Activities
RIN 1625–AA00
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147
Continental shelf, Marine safety,
Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 147 as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Nov 17, 2015
Jkt 238001
Safety Zone; Titan SPAR, Mississippi
Canyon 941, Outer Continental Shelf
on the Gulf of Mexico
Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a safety zone around the
Titan SPAR system, located in
Mississippi Canyon Block 941 on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the
Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the
safety zone is to protect the facility from
all vessels operating outside the normal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
shipping channels and fairways that are
not providing services to or working
with the facility. Placing a safety zone
around the facility will significantly
reduce the threat of allisions, collisions,
security breaches, oil spills, releases of
natural gas, and thereby protect the
safety of life, property, and the
environment.
DATES: This rule is effective December
18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2015–
0320 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S. Coast
Guard, District Eight Waterways
Management Branch; telephone 504–
671–2138, rusty.h.wright@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
SPAR A large diameter, vertical cylinder
supporting a deck
USCG United States Coast Guard
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
Bennu Oil and Gas requested that the
Coast Guard establish a safety zone
extending 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from
each point on the Titan SPAR facility
structure’s outermost edge located in the
deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico on
the OCS. The purpose of the safety zone
is to protect the facility from all vessels
operating outside the normal shipping
channels and fairways that are not
providing services to or working with
the facility. Therefore, on July 24, 2015
we published a NPRM with a request for
comments entitled, ‘‘Safety Zones: Titan
SPAR, Mississippi Canyon 941, Outer
Continental Shelf on the Gulf of
Mexico’’ in the Federal Register (80 FR
43998). We received no comments on
the NPRM.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority in 14 U.S.C. 85, 43
U.S.C. 1333, Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, and
Title 33, CFR part 147, which
collectively permit the establishment of
safety zones for facilities located on the
OCS for the purpose of protecting life,
property and the marine environment.
The Coast Guard has determined that a
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 222 (Wednesday, November 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71940-71942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29449]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[Docket No. USCG-2015-0318]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Turritella FPSO, Walker Ridge 551, Outer Continental
Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around the
Turritella FPSO system, Walker Ridge 551 on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the safety zone is to
protect the facility from all vessels operating outside the normal
shipping channels and fairways that are not providing services to or
working with the facility. Placing a safety zone around the facility
will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, collisions, security
breaches, oil spills, releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the
safety of life, property, and the environment.
DATES: This rule is effective December 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0318 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight
Waterways Management Branch; telephone 504-671-2138,
rusty.h.wright@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
FPSO Floating Production Storage Offloading Vessel
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
USCG United States Coast Guard
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
Shell Exploration & Production Company requested that the Coast
Guard establish a safety zone around the Turritella FPSO, which is a
ship-shaped offshore production facility that stores crude oil in tanks
located in its hull. It will attach to a moored turret buoy and
[[Page 71941]]
move in a 360 degree arc around the position 26[deg]25'38.74'' N.,
90[deg]48'45.34'' W. The purpose of the safety zone is to protect the
facility from all vessels operating outside the normal shipping
channels and fairways that are not providing services to or working
with the facility. Therefore, on July 28, 2015 we published a NPRM with
a request for comments entitled, ``Safety Zones: Turritella FPSO
system, Walker Ridge 551, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of
Mexico'' in the Federal Register (80 FR 44910). We received no comments
on the NPRM.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 14
U.S.C. 85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1, and 33 CFR part 147, which collectively permit the
establishment of safety zones for facilities located on the OCS for the
purpose of protecting life, property and the marine environment.
The Coast Guard has determined that a safety zone is necessary to
protect the facility from all vessels operating outside the normal
shipping channels and fairways that are not providing services to or
working with the facility. The purpose of the rule is to significantly
reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural
gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the
environment.
For the purpose of safety zones established under 33 CFR part 147,
the deepwater area is considered to be waters of 304.8 meters (1,000
feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United
States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the
baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in
the vicinity of the safety zone consists of large commercial shipping
vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the
occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area also includes an
extensive system of fairways.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published July
28, 2015. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a safety zone extending 500 meters (1640.4
feet) around the stern of the FPSO when it is moored to the turret
buoy. If the FPSO detaches from the turret buoy, the safety zone of 500
meters (1640.4) will be measured from the center point of the turret
buoy. No vessel, except those attending the facility, or those less
than 100 feet in length and not engaged in towing will be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
V. 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 and executive orders, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the
location of the Turritella FPSO--on the Outer Continental Shelf--and
its distance from both land and safety fairways. Vessel traffic can
pass safely around the safety zone using alternate routes. Exceptions
to this rule include vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length
overall and not engaged in towing. Deviation to transit through the
safety zone may be requested. Such requests will be considered on a
case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast
Guard District or a designated representative.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
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.
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
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.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the
[[Page 71942]]
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications
for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination 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 involves the establishment
of a safety zone around an OCS Facility to protect life, property and
the marine environment. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. The environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 147 as follows:
PART 147--SAFETY ZONES
0
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 147.863 to read as follows:
Sec. 147.863 Turritella FPSO System Safety Zone.
(a) Description. The Turritella, a Floating Production, Storage and
Offloading (FPSO) system is to be installed in the deepwater area of
the Gulf of Mexico at Walker Ridge 551. The FPSO can swing in a 360
degree arc around the center point of the turret buoy's swing circle at
26[deg]25'38.74'' N., 90[deg]48'45.34'' W., and the area within 500
meters (1640.4 feet) around the stern of the FPSO when it is moored to
the turret buoy is a safety zone. If the FPSO detaches from the turret
buoy, the area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) around the center point
at 26[deg]25'38.74'' N., 90[deg]48'45.34'' W. is a safety zone.
(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except the following:
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in
towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District.
Dated: October 27, 2015.
David R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-29449 Filed 11-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
