[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55443-55445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24367]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[CGD08-02-045]
RIN 1625-AG54 (Formerly RIN 2115-AG54)


Safety Zone for Outer Continental Shelf Facility in the Gulf of 
Mexico for Viasca Knoll 915

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around a 
petroleum and gas production facility in Viasca Knoll 915 of the Outer 
Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. The facility needs to be 
protected from vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels 
and fairways, and placing a safety zone around this facility 
significantly reduces the threat of allisions, oil spills and releases 
of natural gas. This rule prevents all vessels from entering or 
remaining in the specified area around the facility except for 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.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket [CGD08-02-045] and are available for inspection or 
copying at Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m), Hale Boggs 
Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA, between 8 a.m. and 
3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (LT) Kevin Lynn, Project 
Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal 
Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-
6271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On February 28, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone for Outer Continental Shelf Facility in 
the Gulf of Mexico for Viasca Knoll 915'' in the Federal Register (68 
FR 9611). We received two comments on the proposed rule. No public 
hearing was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around Marlin Tension 
Leg Platform (Marlin TLP), Viasca Knoll 915 (VK 915), located at 
position 29[deg]06'27.46'' N, 87[deg]56'37.14'' W.
    The safety zone established by this rule is in the deepwater area 
of the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this rule the deepwater area 
is considered to include waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater 
in depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 
contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and up to a 
distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Vessels navigating in 
the area of the safety zone consist of large commercial shipping 
vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the 
occasional recreational vessel. An extensive system of navigational 
fairways is within the deepwater area. The fairways include the Gulf of 
Mexico East-West Fairway, the entrance/exit route of the Mississippi 
River, and the Mobile Bay approaches. Significant amounts of vessel 
traffic occur in or near the various fairways in the deepwater area.
    Chas R. Haven & Assoc., Inc., hereafter referred to as Haven Group 
requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone in the Gulf of 
Mexico around the tension leg platform, Marlin owned by B.P. Amoco.
    The request for the safety zone was made due to the high level of 
shipping activity around the facility and the safety concerns for both 
the personnel on board the facility and the environment. The Haven 
Group indicated that the location, production level, and personnel 
levels on board the facility make it highly likely that any allision 
with the facility would result in a catastrophic event. The Marlin is a 
high production oil and gas drilling facility producing approximately 
41,000 barrels of oil per day, 310 million cubic feet of gas per day 
and is manned with a crew of approximately 80 people.
    The Coast Guard reviewed Group Haven's concerns and agreed that the 
risk of allision to the facility and the potential for loss of life and 
damage to the environment resulting from such an accident warrants the 
establishment of this safety zone. This rule significantly reduces the 
threat of allisions, oil spills and natural gas releases and increases 
the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of 
Mexico. This regulation is issued pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 
U.S.C. 1333 as set out in the authority citation for 33 CFR part 147.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received two comments on the proposed rule. One comment was 
received requesting that the owner of Marlin TLP, B.P. Amoco, be 
included in the rule.
    The second comment expressed concerns over the Coast Guard 
establishing ``security zones'' around offshore platforms and the 
potential economic impact this type of zone may have on recreational 
and commercial fishing industries. Over the past several years the 
Coast Guard has established thirteen offshore safety zones in the Gulf 
of Mexico. Each zone, as well as this one, was requested in accordance 
with 33 CFR 147. The purpose of this offshore safety zone is clearly 
stated in

[[Page 55444]]

the ``Background and Purpose'' section of this rule. The purpose of 
offshore safety zones is also described in 33 CFR 147.1, which clearly 
states that they are ``to promote the safety of life and property on 
the facilities, their appurtenances and attending vessels, and on the 
adjacent waters within the safety zones.'' The Coast Guard has not 
proposed an offshore security zone for the Marlin TLP or any other 
offshore facility.
    Since the rule will allow vessels less than 100 feet not engaged in 
towing within the zone and any vessel may request permission from the 
Eighth Coast Guard District Commander to enter the zone, the Coast 
Guard has made no substantial changes to the provisions of the proposed 
rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This 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).
    The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal 
because the safety zone does not encompass any nearby safety fairways.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    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. Few privately owned fishing vessels and recreational boats/
yachts operate in the area of the Marlin TLP because it is located far 
offshore, and alternate routes are available for those that do. Use of 
alternate routes may cause a minimal loss of time (estimated loss of 
four to ten minutes) to their destination depending on how fast the 
vessel is traveling. The Coast Guard expects the impact of this 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 rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how 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 offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so they could better evaluate its 
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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).

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure we do 
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This 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 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 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 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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.

Environment

    We have analyzed this 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

[[Page 55445]]

NEPA. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available where indicated 
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

0
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; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  147.827 to read as follows:


Sec.  147.827  Marlin Tension Leg Platform Safety Zone.

    (a) Description. The Marlin Tension Leg Platform (Marlin TLP), 
Viasca Knoll, Block 915 (VK 915), is located at position 
29[deg]6[min]27.46[sec] N, 87[deg]56[min]37.14[sec] W. The area within 
500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the 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;
    (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: August 19, 2003.
J.W. Stark,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District Acting.
[FR Doc. 03-24367 Filed 9-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P