Safety Zone; Appomattox FPS, Mississippi Canyon 437, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico, 20733-20735 [2018-09789]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
33781) now codified primarily at 21
CFR 101.9 and 101.36). With respect to
our enforcement discretion policy
pertaining to ‘‘calories from fat’’
declarations, this part of the guidance is
immediately effective because we have
determined that prior public
participation is not feasible or
appropriate (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)). The
guidance announced in this notice
finalizes the draft guidance dated
November 2017.
II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This guidance refers to previously
approved collections of information
found in FDA regulations. These
collections of information are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The collections of information in
§ 101.11(b)(2), (c)(3), and (d) have been
approved under OMB control number
0910–0783.
III. Electronic Access
Persons with access to the internet
may obtain the guidance at either
https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or
https://www.regulations.gov. Use the
FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current
version of the guidance.
Dated: May 3, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018–09725 Filed 5–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[Docket Number USCG–2017–0446]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Appomattox FPS,
Mississippi Canyon 437, Outer
Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a permanent safety zone
extending 500 meters around the
Appomattox Floating Production
System (FPS) facility located in
Mississippi Canyon Block 437 on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the
Gulf of Mexico. This action is necessary
to protect the facility from all vessels
operating outside the normal shipping
channels and fairways that are not
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 May 07, 2018
Jkt 244001
providing services to or working with
the facility. Only vessels measuring less
than 100 feet in length overall and not
engaged in towing, attending vessels as
defined in 33 CFR 147.20, or those
vessels specifically authorized by the
Eighth Coast Guard District Commander
or a designated representative are
permitted to enter or remain in the
safety zone.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 8,
2018.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2017–
0446 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Ms. Laura Knoll, U.S. Coast
Guard, District Eight Waterways
Management Branch; telephone 504–
671–2139, Laura.B.Knoll@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FPS Floating production system
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
Shell Exploration and Production Co.
requested that the Coast Guard establish
an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) safety
zone extending 500 meters from each
point on the Appomattox Floating
Production System (FPS) facility
structure’s outermost edge. In response
to Shell Exploration and Production
Co.’s request and on the basis of the
District Commander’s safety analysis, on
March 20, 2018, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone;
Appomattox FPS, Mississippi Canyon
437, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf
of Mexico (83 FR 12144). There we
stated why we issued the NPRM, and
invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to establishing
the 500-meter safety zone. During the
comment period that ended on April 19,
2018, we received no comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public
interest because immediate action is
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20733
needed to respond to the potential
safety concerns and hazards that could
occur within 500 meters of the facility.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under the authority provided in 14
U.S.C. 85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(90), and Title 33,
CFR 147.1, 147.5, and 147.10. The
District Commander determined that
placing a safety zone around the facility
will significantly reduce the threat of
allisions, oil spills, and releases of
natural gas, and thereby protect the
safety of life, property, and living
marine resources. The purpose of this
rule 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.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes,
and the Rule
As noted above, we received no
comments on our NPRM published on
March 20, 2018. This regulatory text of
this final rule contains one technical
amendment. In the NPRM, we indicated
that permission to enter the safety zone
may be obtained from the District
Commander or a designated
representative in the discussion of the
proposed rule but not the regulatory
text. This final rule corrects the
regulatory text to indicate that
permission to enter the safety zone may
be obtained from the District
Commander or a designated
representative.
This rule establishes a safety zone on
the OCS in the deepwater area of the
Gulf of Mexico at Mississippi Canyon
Block 437. The area for the safety zone
is 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each
point on the facility, which is located at
28°34′25.47″ N 87°56′03.11″ W. Only
vessels measuring less than 100 feet in
length overall and not engaged in
towing, attending vessels as defined in
33 CFR 147.20, or those vessels
specifically authorized by the Eighth
Coast Guard District Commander or a
designated representative are permitted
to enter or remain in the safety zone.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
20734
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 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.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This rule has not
been designated as a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has
not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the safety zone’s location
and its distance from both land and
safety fairways. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action due to the
location of the Appomattox FPS on the
Outer Continental Shelf, and its
distance from both land and safety
fairways. Vessels traversing waters near
the proposed safety zone are able to
safely travel around the zone using
alternate routes. Exceptions to this rule
also include vessels measuring less than
100 feet in length overall and not
engaged in towing and attending vessels
as defined in 33 CFR 147.20. In
addition, the Eighth Coast Guard
District Commander or a designated
representative will consider requests to
enter or transit through the safety zone
on a case-by-case basis.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 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 no comments
from the Small Business Administration
on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 May 07, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
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 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.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
Directive 023–01 and Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
determined 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
establishing a safety zone around an
offshore deepwater facility. It is
categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
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
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.
■
2. Add § 147.869 to read as follows:
§ 147.869 Safety Zone; Appomattox FPS
Facility, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf
of Mexico.
(a) Description. The Appomattox
Floating Production System (FPS)
system is in the deepwater area of the
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Gulf of Mexico at Mississippi Canyon
Block 437. The facility is located at
28°34′25.47″ N 87°56′03.11″ W (NAD
83), and the area within 500 meters
(1640.4 feet) from each point on the
facility structure’s outer edge is a safety
zone.
(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or
remain in this safety zone except the
following:
(1) An attending vessel, as defined by
33 CFR 147.20;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length
overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Eighth
Coast Guard District Commander or a
designated representative.
Dated: May 2, 2018.
Paul F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018–09789 Filed 5–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900–AP23
Special Monthly Compensation for
Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) amends its adjudication
regulations to add an additional
compensation benefit for veterans with
residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI).
This final rule incorporates in
regulations a benefit authorized by the
enactment of the Veterans’ Benefits Act
of 2010. The Veterans’ Benefits Act
authorizes special monthly
compensation (SMC) for veterans with
TBI who are in need of aid and
attendance, and in the absence of such
aid and attendance, would require
hospitalization, nursing home care, or
other residential institutional care.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective June 7, 2018.
Applicability Date: The provisions of
this final rule shall apply to all
applications for benefits received by VA
on or after October 1, 2011, or that were
pending before VA, the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or
the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit on October 1, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roselyn Tyson, Regulations Staff
(211D), Compensation Service,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 May 07, 2018
Jkt 244001
20420, (202) 461–9700. (This is not a
toll-free telephone number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 21, 2016, VA published in the
Federal Register (81 FR 93649) a
proposed rule to amend 38 CFR 3.350
and 3.352 to add SMC for veterans with
residuals of TBI. As explained in the
proposed rule, section 601 of the
Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010, Public
Law 111–275 (the Veterans’ Benefits
Act) authorized SMC for veterans who,
as the result of service-connected
disability, are in need of regular aid and
attendance for the residuals of TBI, and
in the absence of such regular aid and
attendance, would require
hospitalization, nursing home care, or
other residential institutional care.
Effective October 1, 2011, section 601
authorized an additional monetary
allowance for veterans with residuals of
TBI who require this higher level of care
but would not otherwise qualify for the
benefit under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2).
To date, VA has relied on nonregulatory guidance to implement
section 601 of the Veterans’ Benefits
Act. By issuing this final rule, VA
updates its adjudication regulations to
reflect the authorization provided by
section 601.
Response to Public Comments
As noted above, VA published the
proposed rule in the Federal Register
(81 FR 93649) on December 21, 2016.
VA provided a 60-day public comment
period, which ended on February 21,
2017, and received two comments. VA
responds to all comments as follows.
For the reasons set forth in the proposed
rule and below, VA adopts the proposed
rule as final, without changes.
Both commenters expressed support
for the rulemaking, noting that SMC
should be awarded for TBI. VA
appreciates the time and effort
expended by these commenters in
reviewing the proposed rule and in
submitting comments, as well as their
support for this rulemaking.
One commenter stated that this
rulemaking should restrict the use of
SMC payments to treatment for TBI. The
commenter noted that application for
SMC funds should be made on a yearly
basis and the funds should be applied
specifically for medical care of the TBI.
VA notes that it has no authority to
direct how payments are used once
awarded to a veteran; VA only has legal
authority to determine benefit eligibility
and entitlement.
The same commenter stated that
application of SMC should be limited to
claims where TBI that was incurred in
the line of duty and was not a result of
self-inflicted injury, and the veteran
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20735
applying for the benefit was not
dishonorably discharged. This
commenter also appears to suggest that
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) be
included in the definition of a TBI and
provided examples of individuals who
may have benefited from this approach.
While any injury outside the line of
duty would not be service connected,
we note that the occurrence of such an
injury is interpreted very broadly. See
Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362,
1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining
that an injury or disease will be deemed
to have been incurred in the line of duty
if it occurred at almost any time during
a veteran’s active service—even during
authorized leave). With regard to the
commenter’s statement that selfinflicted injuries should not be the basis
for service-connected TBI for SMC, we
note that self-inflicted injuries generally
would not be covered to the extent they
constituted willful misconduct.
Whether or not a given self-injury rises
to the level of willful misconduct is a
case specific factual determination that
is separate from the level of
compensation at stake, which is what is
affected by this rule. See 38 CFR 3.301.
While the commenter also expressed
that SMC based on service-connected
TBI should not be available to
individuals with a dishonorable
discharge, VA statutes and regulations
preclude veteran status and benefits for
individuals with a dishonorable
discharge. 38 U.S.C. 101(2); 38 CFR
3.12(a). Finally, in response to the
commenter’s last assertion that VA
should define whether PTSD ‘‘is
included under the definition of [TBI],’’
we note that PTSD is already a disability
available for VA service connection and
rating as a mental disorder under 38
CFR 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411.
Therefore, VA already compensates
veterans for service-connected PTSD,
including with PTSD that is somehow
causally related to TBI.
In any case, the general eligibility
criteria for SMC and the definition of
TBI are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no
change based on these comments.
The second commenter stated that
veterans with TBI should have always
qualified for maximum monthly relief.
VA notes that SMC is authorized by
statute, and prior to the enactment of
the Veterans’ Benefits Act, VA lacked
the statutory authority to provide the
level of SMC contemplated in the Act
for TBI. The commenter also noted the
length of time it took to authorize and
implement SMC for TBI. As noted
above, VA has to date relied on nonregulatory guidance to implement the
statutory authorization for SMC for TBI.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20733-20735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09789]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[Docket Number USCG-2017-0446]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Appomattox FPS, Mississippi Canyon 437, Outer
Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone
extending 500 meters around the Appomattox Floating Production System
(FPS) facility located in Mississippi Canyon Block 437 on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. This action 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. Only vessels measuring less than 100 feet in
length overall and not engaged in towing, attending vessels as defined
in 33 CFR 147.20, or those vessels specifically authorized by the
Eighth Coast Guard District Commander or a designated representative
are permitted to enter or remain in the safety zone.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 8, 2018.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0446 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Laura Knoll, U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight
Waterways Management Branch; telephone 504-671-2139,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FPS Floating production system
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
Shell Exploration and Production Co. requested that the Coast Guard
establish an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) safety zone extending 500
meters from each point on the Appomattox Floating Production System
(FPS) facility structure's outermost edge. In response to Shell
Exploration and Production Co.'s request and on the basis of the
District Commander's safety analysis, on March 20, 2018, the Coast
Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety
Zone; Appomattox FPS, Mississippi Canyon 437, Outer Continental Shelf
on the Gulf of Mexico (83 FR 12144). There we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
establishing the 500-meter safety zone. During the comment period that
ended on April 19, 2018, we received no comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety concerns and
hazards that could occur within 500 meters of the facility.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority provided
in 14 U.S.C. 85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(90), and Title 33, CFR 147.1, 147.5, and 147.10.
The District Commander determined that placing a safety zone around the
facility will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills,
and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life,
property, and living marine resources. The purpose of this rule 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.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on
March 20, 2018. This regulatory text of this final rule contains one
technical amendment. In the NPRM, we indicated that permission to enter
the safety zone may be obtained from the District Commander or a
designated representative in the discussion of the proposed rule but
not the regulatory text. This final rule corrects the regulatory text
to indicate that permission to enter the safety zone may be obtained
from the District Commander or a designated representative.
This rule establishes a safety zone on the OCS in the deepwater
area of the Gulf of Mexico at Mississippi Canyon Block 437. The area
for the safety zone is 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the
facility, which is located at 28[deg]34'25.47'' N 87[deg]56'03.11'' W.
Only vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not
engaged in towing, attending vessels as defined in 33 CFR 147.20, or
those vessels specifically authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard
District Commander or a designated representative are permitted to
enter or remain in the safety zone.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
[[Page 20734]]
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated as a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the safety zone's
location and its distance from both land and safety fairways. This rule
is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the
Appomattox FPS on the Outer Continental Shelf, and its distance from
both land and safety fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the
proposed safety zone are able to safely travel around the zone using
alternate routes. Exceptions to this rule also include vessels
measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in
towing and attending vessels as defined in 33 CFR 147.20. In addition,
the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander or a designated
representative will consider requests to enter or transit through the
safety zone on a case-by-case basis.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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 no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 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 Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 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 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.
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
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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
establishing a safety zone around an offshore deepwater facility. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
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. 147.869 to read as follows:
Sec. 147.869 Safety Zone; Appomattox FPS Facility, Outer Continental
Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico.
(a) Description. The Appomattox Floating Production System (FPS)
system is in the deepwater area of the
[[Page 20735]]
Gulf of Mexico at Mississippi Canyon Block 437. The facility is located
at 28[deg]34'25.47'' N 87[deg]56'03.11'' W (NAD 83), and the area
within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the facility
structure's outer edge is a safety zone.
(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except the following:
(1) An attending vessel, as defined by 33 CFR 147.20;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in
towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District
Commander or a designated representative.
Dated: May 2, 2018.
Paul F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-09789 Filed 5-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
