Rule2021-16869
Electronic Submission of Facility Operations and Emergency Manuals
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 11, 2021
Effective
September 10, 2021
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
This final rule enables regulated facilities to electronically submit Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and electronically communicate with the Coast Guard. This rule also allows facility operators to submit one electronic or printed copy of the manuals and one electronic or printed copy of the amendments to the manuals. Finally, this rule requires the regulated facilities to maintain either an electronic or a printed copy of each required manual in the marine transfer area of the facility during transfer operations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43915-43941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16869]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 127, 154, and 156
[Docket No. USCG-2020-0315]
RIN 1625-AC61
Electronic Submission of Facility Operations and Emergency
Manuals
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule enables regulated facilities to electronically
submit Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and electronically
communicate with the Coast Guard. This rule also allows facility
operators to submit one electronic or printed copy of the manuals and
one electronic or printed copy of the amendments to the manuals.
Finally, this rule requires the regulated facilities to maintain either
an electronic or a printed copy of each required manual in the marine
transfer area of the facility during transfer operations.
DATES: This rule is effective September 10, 2021.
ADDRESSES: To view comments and documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type
USCG-2020-0315 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the
Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Mazyck, Coast Guard
Division of Cargo and Facilities; telephone 202-372-1130, email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e68483888c878b8f88c882c88b879c9f858da693958581c88b8f8a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4b6b1babeb5b9bdbafab0fab9b5aeadb7bf94a1a7b7b3fab9bdb8">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
III. Discussion of Comments and Changes from the Proposed Rule
IV. Discussion of the Final Rule
A. Part 127--Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural
Gas and Liquefied Hazardous Gas
B. Part 154--Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials
in Bulk
C. Part 156--Oil and Hazardous Material Transfer Operations
D. Technical Revisions Within Part 127 and Part 154
V. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. Abbreviations
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-FAC U.S. Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Compliance
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
IT Information technology
LHG Liquefied Hazardous Gas
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MTR facilities Marine Transportation-Related facilities that
transfer oil or hazardous material in bulk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIC Person in Charge
RA Regulatory analysis
SBA Small Business Administration
Sec. Section
SME Subject matter expert
UPS United Parcel Service
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
Section 70011 of Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
to establish procedures, standards, and measures for the handling of
dangerous substances, including oil and hazardous material, to prevent
damage to any structure on or in the navigable waters of the United
States. Additionally, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),
as amended and codified in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), requires the President
to establish regulations requiring response plans for the prevention of
discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels, onshore
facilities, and offshore facilities. The FWPCA functions in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5) have been delegated from the President to the Secretary of
the DHS by Executive Order 12777 Sec. 2(d)(2) (Volume 56 of the Federal
Register (FR) at Page 54757, Oct. 23, 1991), as amended by Executive
Order 13286 (68 FR 10619, March 5, 2003). The authorities in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5) and 46 U.S.C. 70011 (formerly 33 U.S.C. 1225) have been
delegated to the Coast Guard under section II, paragraphs 70 and 73, of
DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 127 requires
facilities that transfer liquefied natural gas (LNG), or liquefied
hazardous gas (LHG) in bulk, to or from a vessel, to maintain both an
Operations Manual and an Emergency Manual. Similarly, part 154 requires
facilities that transfer oil or hazardous materials in bulk (MTR
facilities), to or from a vessel with a capacity of 39.75 cubic meters
(250 barrels) or more, to maintain an Operations Manual. According to
33 CFR 127.019, 154.300, and 154.325, two copies each of the Operations
Manual
[[Page 43916]]
and the Emergency Manual must be submitted to the Captain of the Port
(COTP) of the zone in which the facility is located for examination
before a facility may operate. Lastly, part 156 describes the
requirements for transferring of oil or other hazardous materials on
the navigable waters or contiguous zone of the United States to, from,
or within each vessel with a capacity of 39.75 cubic meters (250
barrels) or more.
The COTP evaluates whether the operations and safety procedures
outlined in the manuals meet the requirements for applicable facilities
in 33 CFR part 127 (for LNG and LHG) or parts 154 and 156 (for the
transfer operations of oil or hazardous material). If the procedures in
the manuals meet the requirements, then the COTP returns one copy of
each manual, marked ``Examined by the Coast Guard.''
As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled
``Electronic Submission of Facility Operations and Emergency Manuals,''
published November 27, 2020 (85 FR 75972), the purpose of this
rulemaking is to allow facility operators to submit and maintain the
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual in either print or electronic
format. The comment submissions received on the NPRM expressed general
support for allowing electronic submissions and the proposed changes.
Therefore, this final rule implements the changes proposed in the NPRM
with clarifying edits, as explained in section III of this rule.
Although the previous regulations did not explicitly state that the
manuals had to be printed, the previous regulatory requirement for the
owner or operator to submit two copies and for the COTP to return one
marked copy suggested the use of printed documents. The Coast Guard
issued the two-copy requirement for LNG and LHG facilities in 1988 (53
FR 3370, February 5, 1988) and for oil and hazardous materials
facilities in 1996 (61 FR 41458, August 8, 1996), when electronic mail
and electronic storage were not common practice. This final rule
removes the two-copy requirement and allows facility operators to
submit one printed or electronic copy of each required manual to the
COTP for examination. It also allows facilities to maintain either a
printed or an electronic copy of the most recently examined manual(s)
in the marine transfer area of the facility.
III. Discussion of Comments and Changes From the Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard received four comment submissions during the NPRM's
60-day comment period that ended January 27, 2021. All four of the
commenters supported the proposed change to allow electronic submission
and communication regarding Facility Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals.
Three of the commenters requested that we consider expanding the
use of electronic submission, digital tools, and electronic storage to
other documents required by regulation. Currently, electronic
submission capability exists for the submission of Facility Security
Plans for facilities regulated under 33 CFR part 105. The NPRM only
proposed and requested comments on allowing electronic submission of
Facility Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals under parts 127 and
154. The Coast Guard is exploring the long-term feasibility of
expanding this capability beyond the current requirements, but that is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
One commenter concurred that all manuals and other written material
could be sent electronically, but recommended keeping a printed version
readily available and accessible for team members carrying out
assignments at the facility. The Coast Guard wants to allow flexibility
for facility operators to choose which format is appropriate based on
the physical characteristics and operating procedures of their specific
facility. While this commenter did not provide reasons why allowing
electronic copies at the facility would be inadequate or unsafe, the
Coast Guard wants to make it clear that there are existing electrical
safety standards that apply to the electronic devices used to display
electronic copies of the manuals. In response to this comment, and upon
further deliberation, we realize that the text allowing electronic
manuals in the marine transfer area could benefit from clarification to
help the facilities safely adopt the electronic viewing option. This
final rule adds an additional statement to the proposed regulatory text
that electronic devices used to display electronic manuals must meet
applicable electrical safety standards in the applicable CFR part.
Parts 127 and 154 have electrical safety standards for these
facilities that are applicable to electronic devices used in a
facility. By adding this regulatory text, we are clarifying that
allowing electronic viewing and storage of the Facility Operations
Manuals or Emergency Manuals does not circumvent those safety
requirements. The Coast Guard anticipates that some facilities will
still have printed manuals at their operations stations; those
facilities will not be required to maintain an electronic copy under
this final rule. We have taken this into account in our cost savings
calculations by using data on how many facilities will use electronic
and printed manuals.
We are making three changes to the regulatory text we proposed in
the NPRM. First, as noted above, in paragraphs 127.309(a), 127.1309(a),
and 154.300(f), we add a statement that electronic devices used to
display the electronic manuals must meet applicable safety standards in
the part. Second, we specify that the requirement for facilities to
include identifying information on manual submissions must be revision-
specific identifying information, to help the Coast Guard and the
facility identify the most recently examined manual. In paragraphs
127.019(c) and (d), 154.300(a)(4) and (e), 154.320(e), and 154.325(c),
we changed the proposed text, ``identifying information generated by
the facility,'' to ``revision-specific identifying information.'' With
respect to the revision-specific identifying information, we are also
removing the proposed text, ``generated by the facility.'' The Coast
Guard does not intend to limit who can create the revision-specific
identifying information. As we discuss in section IV of this preamble,
the purpose of requiring facilities to include the publication date,
revision date, or other revision-specific identifying information on
the manual submissions is so that the Coast Guard and the facility can
identify the most recently examined version of the manual. Requiring
the identifying information to be revision-specific will help achieve
that purpose.
The third change from the NPRM regulatory text is in paragraph
156.120(t)(2), which is the existing requirement for maintaining
Facility Operations Manuals and vessel transfer procedures at the
facility. After publication of the NPRM, we realized that the proposed
text inadvertently allowed electronic copies of vessel transfer
procedures, which is in conflict with existing Sec. 155.740. Section
155.740, paragraphs (b) and (c), require that vessel transfer
procedures be printed and posted for viewing. The NPRM only discussed
allowing electronic copies for the Facility Operations Manuals; we do
not intend to allow electronic copies for vessel transfer procedures.
Because print or electronic copies of the Facility Operations Manuals
will be expressly permitted by new Sec. 154.300, this final rule
revises paragraph 156.120(t)(2) from the version in the NPRM to say
that ``copies'' instead of ``print or electronic copies'' of the
Facility Operations Manual and vessel transfer
[[Page 43917]]
procedures must be available for viewing in the marine transfer area.
This change in text will ensure the section does not conflict with the
printed copy requirement for vessel transfer procedures in Sec.
155.740.
IV. Discussion of the Final Rule
This final rule amends the following sections in title 33 of the
CFR: 127.019, 127.309, 127.1309, 154.300, 154.320, 154.325, and
156.120. A section-by-section explanation of the new requirements
follows.
A. Part 127--Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and
Liquefied Hazardous Gas
Section 127.019 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Procedures for
examination
This section will allow owners and operators of facilities that
transfer LNG and LHG, in bulk, to or from a vessel to submit one print
or electronic copy of their Operations Manual and Emergency Manual to
the COTP for examination.
Additionally, to codify current practices, manuals submitted after
the effective date of the final rule must include a date, revision
date, or other revision-specific identifying information. All manuals
currently contain unique identifying information. Paragraph (c) of this
section will allow them to continue to use their own identifying
information or to use a revision date. The date, revision date, or
other revision-specific identifying information, such as document
control numbers, will allow the facility operator and the Coast Guard
to determine quickly if the most recent version of the manual is being
used.
As specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the COTP will
respond to the facilities electronically to reduce paperwork-processing
costs. Under this rule, the COTP will provide notice to the facility
that the manual has been examined, and will no longer return a marked
copy of the manual to the facility.
The COTP will determine the best method to return the notice to the
facility operator by considering the facility's available contact
information and the method in which the manuals were submitted. We
expect the COTP's notice will initially take the form of a printed or
electronically submitted letter to the facility operator, but could
eventually include an electronic certification with the information.
The COTP's notice will also include the manual's date, revision date,
or other revision-specific identifying information so that the Coast
Guard and facility operators can verify which manual is the most
recently examined.
Per paragraph (e), the COTP will notify a facility with an
explanation of why a manual does not meet the requirements of this
part, without having to return a printed copy. This enables electronic
communication between the Coast Guard and a facility while reducing
associated printing and mailing costs for the Coast Guard. The COTP
retains the discretion to send the letters and manuals via mail to the
facility when appropriate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We use the term ``mail'' throughout this final rule to refer
to the delivery method used by the COTP or the facility to send and
receive printed copies of letters and manuals. These methods
include, but are not limited to, the United States Postal Service,
FedEx, United Parcel Service (UPS), and courier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, within Sec. 127.019, as proposed in the NPRM, this rule
removes the word ``existing'' where it appears in the context of
``existing facility'' in paragraphs (a) and (b). ``Existing,'' as
applied to a waterfront facility, is defined in Sec. 127.005, but the
definition is limited to facilities that were constructed before June
2, 1988 for LNG facilities, and before January 30, 1996 for LHG
facilities. The specific dates used within the definition of
``existing'' were never intended to apply to the use of ``existing'' in
this section. To avoid confusion, we are removing ``existing'' from
this section. The requirements in paragraph (a) will continue to apply
to all active facilities, and the requirements of paragraph (b) will
continue to apply to all new or inactive facilities.
Section 127.309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use
Paragraph (a), in subpart B for waterfront facilities handling LNG,
will require the operator to ensure that the person in charge (PIC) has
either a printed or an electronic copy of the most recently examined
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual readily available in the marine
transfer area. In this paragraph, we added a statement beyond what was
proposed in the NPRM to clarify that electronic devices used to view an
electronic copy of the manuals must comply with applicable electrical
safety requirements in part 127.
In Sec. 127.309, the phrase ``readily available in the marine
transfer area'' means that a printed or electronic copy of the manual
is available for viewing within the operating station of the PIC. The
PIC is not expected to keep the manual in their possession while
conducting routine rounds during a transfer operation.
While PICs must know the contents of the manuals under paragraph
127.301(a)(4), the Coast Guard recognizes that it is difficult for a
PIC to instantly recall every step of every procedure outlined in these
manuals. Because both paragraphs 127.309(b) and (c) require each
transfer and emergency operation to be conducted in accordance with the
examined Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals, respectively, it has
been common practice for PICs to have a copy of the Operations Manual
and Emergency Manual in the marine transfer area during transfer
operations to reference when needed. Therefore, adding a requirement
that a printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual must be readily available to the
PIC in the marine transfer area does not add a significant burden to
facility operators.
Section 127.1309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use
Section 127.1309(a) in subpart C for waterfront facilities handling
LHG requires that the facility operators ensure the facility's PIC has
a printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual readily available in the marine transfer
area. This requirement in paragraph (a) will help ensure that PICs have
access to the manuals when needed, since there may be fewer printed
copies available when facilities opt into electronic manual submission.
For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``readily available in the
marine transfer area'' means a printed or electronic copy of the manual
is available for viewing within the operating station of the PIC, but
the PIC is not expected to keep the manual in their possession. With
this final rule, we also added a statement to paragraph (a) to clarify
that electronic devices used to view the electronic copy of the manuals
must comply with applicable electrical safety requirements in part 127.
B. Part 154--Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk
Section 154.300 Operations Manual; General
The revised Sec. 154.300 allows facility operators to submit one
printed or electronic copy of the Operations Manual to the COTP with a
date, a revision date, or other revision-specific identifying
information such as a document control number generated by the
facility. This allows the facility and the COTP to determine quickly
during inspections if the facility is using the most recent version of
the manual. As
[[Page 43918]]
the inclusion of such information is current practice, we are only
codifying this current practice.
As proposed in the NPRM, in paragraph (a) we clarify that the
facility operator must submit the manuals to the COTP of the zone in
which the facility operates. The clarification will align the text with
current practice.
This rule implements the proposed changes to how the COTP notifies
the facility that the Operations Manual has been examined in paragraph
(e). Previously, after examination and determination that the manual
meets the requirements of this part, the COTP marked the manual
``Examined by the Coast Guard'' and returned one copy to the facility
operator. Now the COTP will notify the facility that the manual has
been examined and will not return a copy of the manual to the facility.
We expect this notice to initially take the form of a printed or
emailed letter, with the revision date or other revision-specific
identifying information on the letter, but could eventually include an
electronic certification with this information.
Paragraph (f) of Sec. 154.300 allows either a printed or
electronic copy of the most recently examined Operations Manual to be
readily available for each facility's PIC while conducting a transfer
operation. The facility may store the manual in print or electronic
format. In this paragraph, this final rule adds a new statement over
what we originally proposed in the NPRM, specifying that electronic
devices used to view an electronic copy of the manual must comply with
applicable electrical safety requirements in part 154. The facility may
have either printed or electronic copies of the manual in any
translations required under existing paragraph (a)(3).
In Sec. 154.300(d), ``products transferred'' will also be part of
the list of items the COTP considers when determining whether the
manual meets the requirements of part 154 and part 156. Information
about the products transferred, meaning the type of oil and hazardous
material, is already required to be included in the Operation Manuals
under Sec. 154.310(a)(5), and knowledge of the products being
transferred is important to reviewing the adequacy of the Operations
Manual. The facility develops their capabilities based, in part, on the
characteristics of the oil or hazardous material they want to transfer.
Including ``products transferred'' in the list of considerations
increases transparency regarding the manual examination process.
Section 154.320 Operations Manual: Amendment
This section addresses amendments to Operations Manuals. Paragraph
(a) of this section previously stated that the COTP may require the
facility operator to amend their Operations Manual if the manual does
not meet the requirements of this part. This rule replaces
``requirements of this part'' with ``requirements of this subchapter''
because there are other regulations in the subchapter that apply to the
Operations Manual. The applicable subchapter is subchapter O, titled
``Pollution,'' which includes 33 CFR parts 151 through 159.
Section 154.320(a)(1) allows facility operators to submit to the
Coast Guard any information, views, arguments, and proposed amendments
in response to the inadequacies identified by the COTP. To align with
other revisions, we added language to this section allowing facility
operators to send their information, views, arguments, and proposed
amendments to the COTP in print or electronically.
Per paragraph (b)(1), facilities may submit amendments to the
manuals to the COTP either in print or electronically. Paragraphs
(b)(2) and (c) require the COTP to examine the amendments to an
Operations Manual for compliance with the subchapter and then notify
the facility that the Coast Guard has examined the amendments. If the
amendments do not meet the requirements for Operations Manuals in
subchapter O, the COTP will notify the facility operator of the
inadequacies and explain why the amendments do not meet the
requirements of the subchapter. The COTP notice may be a printed or
emailed letter, or even an electronic certification, with the revision
date or other revision-specific identifying information included.
Paragraph (e) describes how facility operators may submit
amendments and the procedures to follow in the event the entire manual
is submitted for amendments. This rule gives the facility operator the
choice of page or whole-manual replacement, but requires them to
include the date, revision date, or other revision-specific identifying
information on the submission. If a facility submits the entire manual
with the proposed amendments, this rule requires that the changes since
the last examined manual be highlighted, or otherwise annotated. It may
be easier for a facility to submit the entire manual with the
amendments highlighted or annotated, rather than isolating individual
pages that were amended. Examples of ways facility operators could
highlight or annotate the amendments include, but are not limited to,
use of an electronic or ink highlighting tool, comment or text boxes
noting where the changes are, or noting the changes in correspondence
or a document. Ultimately, the method that the facility operator uses
can be anything that identifies all the changes, and is not limited to
the methods mentioned in this preamble. The purpose of highlighting or
annotating the amendments is to assist the COTP in understanding what
changes are being made and to reduce the resources required to examine
amendments. After the COTP examines the amendments, the facility must
maintain the Operations Manual with the most recently examined changes,
but there is no requirement to keep the changes highlighted or
annotated after they are examined.
Section 154.325 Operations Manual: Procedures for Examination
This rule removes paragraph (a) of Sec. 154.325, so that the
facility operator is no longer required to submit two copies of the
Operations Manual. To align with other changes in part 154, the
facility operator of a new facility will be able to submit one
electronic or printed copy of the Operations Manual to the COTP.
In re-designated paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, this rule
replaces the previous text, ``any transfer operation'' with, ``the
first transfer operation'' to make the regulatory text more precise.
This clarifies that the facility must submit the Operations Manual
prior to a new facility's first transfer or the first transfer after a
facility is removed from caretaker status.
We also amended the process in Sec. 154.325 to require the COTP to
notify the facility operator when the manual has been examined. Because
we are allowing electronic submission in this final rule, the COTP will
no longer send back a marked printed copy of the manual stating it has
been examined by the Coast Guard. The COTP's notice will restate the
manual's date, revision date, or other identifying information provided
by the facility. If the manual does not meet the requirements of
subchapter O, the COTP will notify the facility with an explanation of
why the manual does not meet the requirements of that subchapter.
In paragraph (d) of Sec. 154.325 (previously paragraph (e) of
Sec. 154.325), this final rule replaces the text ``requirements of
this chapter'' with ``requirements of this subchapter'' because
referencing the entire chapter is too broad. The applicable regulations
[[Page 43919]]
are in this subchapter O, which includes 33 CFR parts 151 through 159.
C. Part 156--Oil and Hazardous Material Transfer Operations
Section 156.120 Requirements for Transfer
Part 156 contains regulations related to oil and hazardous material
transfer operations. In accordance with other changes made by this
rule, in paragraph 156.120(t)(2), the PIC must have a copy of the most
recently examined facility Operations Manual readily available in the
marine transfer area. For the purpose of this section, ``readily
available in the marine transfer area'' means that a printed or
electronic copy of the manual is available for viewing within the
operating station of the PIC. The PIC is not expected to keep the
manual in their possession while conducting routine rounds during the
transfer operation.
D. Technical Revisions Within Part 127 and Part 154
As proposed in the NPRM, we replace uses of the word ``shall'' with
``must'' when specifying the actions facility operators are required to
perform. This helps align the regulations with plain language
guidelines. Additionally, where the COTP is required to respond to or
notify a facility, we replace ``the COTP shall'' with ``the COTP will''
to state clearly what the COTP will do in certain cases. This helps
clarify what the facility operators can expect from the COTP and aligns
the regulations with plain language guidelines. These technical
revisions do not change the requirements for facility operators or the
Coast Guard.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of the analysis based
on these statutes and Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A regulatory
analysis (RA) follows. The first section of this RA covers the
alternatives considered, the second covers the affected population, the
third covers the costs, the fourth covers the cost savings components,
and the fifth provides a summary of the costs savings.
As stated previously under our discussion of public comments, we
received four comments. Three of these comments supported the
implementation of electronic documentation in the proposed rulemaking
as well as in other rulemakings. An anonymous fourth commenter stated
that they would like to see all documents submitted electronically and
kept in that form until approved by the Coast Guard, but kept in
printed form after approval.\2\ In response to this, the final rule
gives the facility operators, at their discretion, the flexibility to
keep that documentation in either print or electronic form. We believe
that the facility operators would best be suited to decide which format
they would prefer, based on the particular circumstances of their
specific facilities. Forcing facilities to use only printed
documentation prevents facilities from realizing any cost savings from
the use of digital documentation. Hence, in this final rule, we allow
facility operators the choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The commenter wrote, ``I would recommend that all Manuals
and others [sic] written material to be submitted electronically
(including if the written material needs to be amended) until the
final approval of the Manuals and/or other documents, which then
could be printed for the required establishments. I also recommend
keeping a printed version (not electronic) readily available and
accessible for team members that are carrying out assignments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are four differences in this RA from the RA in the NPRM that
have a quantified monetary impact. The first two involve updated
financial data. The NPRM used the most up-to-date wage data available
when it was written and what were then current costs to mail documents.
More up-to-date wage data are now available,\3\ and the costs of
mailing documents has changed between the time the NPRM was written and
this final rule. A detailed breakdown of mailing costs, labor handling
costs associated with mailing those documents, and aggregated shipping
and handling costs (the combined cost of both) can be found in table 9.
That table shows mailing costs have changed in a mixed manner, with the
cost associated with mailing some documents going up and others going
down. The price of labor associated with mailing documents has
increased across all document groups, and aggregated shipping and
handling costs (the combination of both) have increased in four of the
six document categories. In aggregate, private sector cost savings
associated with shipping and handling, costs have increased from
$14,530 in the NPRM to $15,323 in the final rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, wage data for the NPRM was taken from the May
2019 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates, while for the final rule the data were taken from the May
2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates. The fully burdened wages of in-scope employees rose from
$30.28 for LNG/LHG employees and $100.03 for MTR facility employees
in the NPRM, to $32.19 and $106.82, respectively, in the final rule.
\4\ See table 2, specifically the aggregate of the rows
``savings from not having to mail manuals (and amendments) to the
COTP'' by LNG/LHG facilities and MTR facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other two differences involve the handling of manuals and
amendments that the COTP finds to be inadequate. We now estimate that,
under current regulations, when the COTP finds an Operations Manual or
Emergency Manual or amendment to be inadequate, the facility operator
sends two copies of the document back to the COTP instead of the one
copy originally assumed by the NPRM.\5\ The final difference is that in
this final rule we estimate that, under current regulations, the COTP
sends a facility one stamped copy of an Operations Manual or Emergency
Manual or amendment after it has been modified to remedy an inadequacy
and been deemed acceptable by the COTP. In the NPRM economic analysis,
we incorrectly stated that no copies were sent back in such cases,
when, in fact, the COTP does send back one copy.\6\ We discuss these
four new in more detail in the cost savings section of this RA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This change, from one copy to two copies, was made due to
new information provided by Coast Guard subject matter experts
(SMEs).
\6\ This change, from zero copies to one copy, was made due to
new input from Coast Guard SMEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than these four modifications, there are no substantive
changes to the requirements and calculations originally proposed in the
NPRM. We made clarifying edits to the regulatory text, as noted in the
Discussion of Comments and Changes from the Proposed Rule section of
this preamble, which do not have any impact on the costs or benefits
from what we proposed in the NPRM.
This rule provides administrative paperwork burden relief for
operators of LNG/LHG and MTR facilities, as the use of electronic
documentation (as opposed
[[Page 43920]]
to print) for Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals, as well as
associated amendments, will permit facilities to satisfy regulatory
requirements at a lower cost. LNG and LHG facilities are required to
submit Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments, while
MTR facilities are required to submit only Operations Manuals and
amendments.
Under current regulations, facility operators are required to send
two printed copies of each manual and set of amendments to the COTP.
The final rule will permit these documents to be submitted
electronically, at the discretion of the facility operators. Facility
operators exercising this option will no longer need to assemble and
mail printed versions, resulting in administrative cost savings. The
final rule will also permit facility operators sending their
documentation in print format to submit only one copy of their
documents, resulting in further administrative cost savings.
Additionally, current regulations require those facility operators
whose documents were not approved by the COTP to resubmit two copies of
revised documents to the COTP in print format. As stated previously, in
the NPRM's economic analysis we erroneously estimated that in the
current regulations the facility only mailed back one revised copy to
the COTP. This has been corrected in the economic analysis of the final
rule.\7\ The annual cost associated with the additional manual that
must be sent by those LNG/LHG and MTR facilities, which includes the
costs of manufacturing the additional manuals and amendments as well as
the shipping and handling associated, is $1,056 per year and $10,563.30
over a 10-year period (in nominal terms). The final rule will permit
facility operators to resubmit their documents in either electronic or
print format. Facility operators exercising the option to use an
electronic format will no longer need to assemble and mail two printed
versions, while those who decide to instead send printed documentation
will only need to send one copy instead of two to the COTP. This
reduction in paper documentation will result in additional
administrative cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The cost difference between the NPRM and the final rule,
accounted for by correctly estimating two manuals instead of
erroneously estimating one, is $1,056.33 per year (and $10,563.30
over a 10-year period, in nominal terms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the final rule permits facilities to keep documentation at
their facility's marine transfer area in either electronic or print
format. Currently, this documentation must be kept in print format at
these locations. According to Coast Guard SMEs from the Office of Port
and Facility Compliance (CG-FAC), the typical facility has, on average,
two marine transfer areas.\8\ LNG and LHG facilities are required to
keep one copy of an Operations Manual and one copy of an Emergency
Manual (and to keep each manual up-to-date with amendments) at each of
their marine transfer areas. MTR facility operators are required to
keep one Operations Manual (and amendments) at each marine transfer
area. Those facility operators that exercise the option to use
electronic documents instead of print will experience a benefit, in the
form of a cost savings, resulting from no longer having to assemble
these printed documents (one copy for each marine transfer area),\9\ as
well as not having to physically place this documentation at the two
marine transfer areas.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Based on an SME assessment from CG-FAC. All Coast Guard SME
input assessments mentioned in this final rule, unless stated
otherwise, are from CG-FAC.
\9\ Each marine transfer area is saved one copy. However, as
each facility has, on average, two marine transfer areas, each
facility is saved two copies total.
\10\ These areas are not the same as the administrative offices
of the facilities; hence, labor time needs to be expended to place
manuals at the transfer areas after they are assembled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule also results in administrative cost savings to the
Coast Guard. Currently, when the COTP examines an Operations Manual or
Emergency Manual and finds it meets the regulatory requirements (or is
``adequate''), they must return a stamped copy to the facility. Under
the final rule, the COTP will not return a printed copy of the manual
via mail. Instead, the COTP will send either a printed or an electronic
message back to the facility stating that the Coast Guard has examined
the manual.\11\ As a result, the Coast Guard will experience cost
savings from not having to handle and mail back to the facility a
stamped, printed version of the manual when the facility sends
electronic documentation to the Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Coast Guard envisions sending back an electronic format
of the manual with an electronically stamped watermark,
notification, or similar method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, if the COTP finds ``inadequacies'' in the
submitted manual, meaning the manual does not meet the regulatory
requirements, the COTP must currently mail back a copy of the manual,
or provide a notification, with annotations or comments specifying how
to correct the manual.\12\ Based on the requirements in the final rule,
the COTP will be allowed to send an electronic or printed message,
instead of only a notification in written form, explaining why the
manual does not meet the requirements of the part. The COTP will not be
obligated to send back any copies of the manual with their explanation
for why the manual does not meet the requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The word ``inadequacies'' is used on numerous occasions in
the text of the current regulation. Sections where the word is
explicitly cited include paragraphs 154.320(a)(1) and 154.320(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, when the COTP receives corrected versions of the
manual back from facilities, under current regulations, the COTP must
send back to the facility one printed copy of the document. In the
economic analysis contained in the NPRM, we had erroneously estimated
that no printed copies of the corrected manual were sent back to the
facility when the COTP finds the corrected manual adequate. This is
corrected in the economic analysis contained in this final rule. As the
final rule permits the Coast Guard to electronically notify facilities
regarding whether their manuals are adequate or inadequate the Coast
Guard will experience a cost savings.
In table 1, we show a summary of the impacts of the final rule. As
a result of the previously discussed changes between this RA and the
NPRM, the projected cost savings to industry and Coast Guard have
increased from the analysis in the NPRM. The annualized and 10 year
cost savings to industry, both discounted 7 percent, increased
approximately 9 percent from the NPRM estimates of $36,307 and $255,007
to $39,394 and $276,689, respectively. The annualized and 10-year cost
savings to the Coast Guard, both discounted 7 percent, increased
approximately 16 percent, from the NPRM estimates of $7,426 and $52,160
to $8,616 and $60,512, respectively. As a result, the aggregated annual
and 10-year cost savings for both the private sector and the Coast
Guard, discounted at 7 percent, increased approximately 10 percent,
from $43,734 and $307,167 to $48,010 and $337,200, respectively.
[[Page 43921]]
Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of the Final Rule 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..................... <bullet> Updates 33 CFR parts 127
and 154 to permit regulated
facilities to submit Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals and
amendments in electronic or printed
format.
<bullet> Updates 33 CFR parts 127
and 154 to permit regulated
facilities that submit printed
Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments to submit
only one copy in that format.
<bullet> Updates 33 CFR parts 127
and 154 to permit the Coast Guard
to send notices of adequacy or
inadequacy to facilities
electronically.
<bullet> Updates 33 CFR parts 127,
154, and 156 to permit regulated
facilities to store electronic 2 or
printed versions of their
Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments at the
marine transfer areas of their
facilities.
Affected Population (Annually).... 60 facilities that transfer LNG and
LHG and 703 MTR facilities (total
of 763 facilities).3
Cost savings to Industry ($2020, 10-year cost savings: $276,689;
7% discount rate). Annualized: $39,394.
Cost savings to the Coast Guard 10-year cost savings: $60,512;
($2020, 7% discount rate). Annualized: $8,616.
Total Cost Savings ($2020, 7% 10-year cost savings: $337,200;
discount rate). Annualized: $48,010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 All dollar figures rounded to the closest whole dollar.
2 Electronic versions at the marine transfer areas of facilities will be
on electronic devices that must comply with applicable electrical
safety standards. For more details, please see the earlier sections of
the preamble to this final rule that discuss paragraphs 127.309(a),
127.1309(a), and 154.320(f).
3 Of the 60 LNG/LHG facilities, we assume 54 will submit their
documentation in electronic format and 6 in print. Of the 703 MTR
facilities, 527 are expected to submit their documents in electronic
format and 176 in print. For a detailed discussion of these estimates
and calculations, refer to the ``Affected Population'' section of this
RA.
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
A more detailed set of tables comparing the cost savings between
the NPRM and the final rule is provided below. Table 2 shows a specific
breakdown by each subset of cost savings between the NPRM and the final
rule. Table 3 shows the differences between the two, on an aggregated
basis (for the full 10-year period looking forward after the
implementation of the rulemaking). Specific details on the derivation
of the numbers for the final rule are discussed later in the RA under
the specific section for each cost element.
As can be seen in table 2, the factor most contributing to the
private sector aggregate cost savings increase was, for MTR facilities,
the savings from not having to produce printed manuals (and amendments)
to mail to the COTP. This one cost savings element, $1,944, accounted
for approximately 63 percent of the aggregate increase in total private
sector costs (of $3,088). With respect to total cost savings for both
the private sector and the government, $4,278, two cost elements
accounted for the overwhelming majority of the cost increase. Those two
cost elements were, for MTR facilities, the cost savings from not
having to produce printed manuals (and amendments) to mail to the COTP
(accounting for 45 percent of the total increase of $4,278) and, for
the Coast Guard, the cost savings from not having to mail printed
manuals (and amendments) back to facilities (accounting for 28 percent
of the increase).
Table 2--Annual Cost Savings of Final Rule and NPRM Compared
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule
Population Cost savings element annual cost NPRM cost Difference
savings savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG Facilities................. Savings from not having to $579 $498 $81
produce printed manuals
(and amendments) to mail
to the COTP.
Savings from not having to 242 234 8
produce printed manuals
(and amendments) for
placement at facility
marine transfer areas.
Savings from not having to 1,011 994 17
mail manuals (and
amendments) to the COTP.
Savings from not having to 1,634 1,605 29
place printed manuals (and
amendments) at facility
marine transfer areas.
Total Annual LNG/LHG Facility ........................... 3,466 3,331 135
Cost Savings.
MTR Facility....................... Savings from not having to 11,839 9,895 1,944
produce printed manuals
(and amendments) to mail
to the COTP.
Savings from not having to 2,120 2,023 97
produce printed manuals
(and amendments) for
placements at facility
marine transfer areas.
Savings from not having to 14,312 13,536 776
mail manuals (and
amendments) to the COTP.
Savings from not having to 7,658 7,522 136
place printed manuals (and
amendments) at facility
marine transfer areas.
Total Annual MTR Facility Cost ........................... 35,929 32,976 2,953
Savings.
[[Page 43922]]
Total Private Sector Cost ........................... 39,395 36,307 3,088
Savings.
Coast Guard........................ Savings from not having to 8,616 7,426 1,190
mail printed manuals (and
amendments) back to
facilities.
Total Annual Coast Guard Cost ........................... 8,616 7,426 1,190
Savings.
Total Private + Government ........................... 48,011 43,733 4,278
Sector.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All numbers rounded to nearest whole number. Figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Table 3 shows the aggregated nominal and discounted (at 7%)
differences, as well as cost savings on a discounted annualized rate
(discounted 7%) by type of facility, for the entire private sector, the
Coast Guard, and the private sector and Coast Guard combined. Cost
savings differ between the final rule and NPRM for these aggregated
figures from approximately 4 percent for LNG/LHG facilities to 9
percent for MTR facilities to 16 percent for the Coast Guard. For the
entire private sector the difference is 9 percent, and for the combined
private and public sectors it is 10 percent.
Table 3--Annual Cost Savings of Final Rule and NPRM Compared
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Difference
Final rule NPRM Difference (from NPRM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG Facilities:
10-Year Nominal Cost Savings................ $34,652 $33,309 $1,343 4
10-Year Cost Savings Discounted (7%)........ 24,338 23,394 944 4
Annualized Cost Savings (Discounted at 7%).. 3,465 3,331 134 4
MTR Facilities:
10-Year Nominal Cost Savings................ 359,290 329,764 29,526 9
10-Year Cost Savings Discounted (7%)........ 252,350 231,612 20,738 9
Annualized Cost Savings (Discounted at 7%).. 35,929 32,976 2,953 9
Total Private Sector:
10-Year Nominal Cost Savings................ 393,942 363,073 30,869 9
10-Year Cost Savings Discounted (7%)........ 276,689 255,007 21,682 9
Annualized Cost Savings (Discounted at 7%).. 39,394 36,307 3,087 9
Coast Guard:
10-Year Nominal Cost Savings................ 86,155 74,264 11,891 16
10-Year Cost Savings Discounted (7%)........ 60,512 52,160 8,352 16
Annualized Cost Savings (Discounted at 7%).. 8,616 7,426 1,190 16
Total Private Sector + Government Sector:
10-Year Nominal Cost Savings................ 480,097 437,337 42,760 10
10-Year Cost Savings Discounted (7%)........ 337,200 307,167 30,033 10
Annualized Cost Savings (Discounted at 7%).. 48,010 43,734 4,276 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All numbers and percentages rounded to nearest whole number or percentage. Figures may not sum exactly due
to rounding.
Alternatives Considered
We considered three alternatives. The first is a continuation of
current regulations (no change). The second is a modification to the
current regulations that would require all regulated facilities to
submit their required Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and
amendments electronically. The third is giving regulated facilities
flexibility to submit documentation in either electronic or printed
format. We discuss each alternative in more detail in the following
sections.
Alternative 1--No Change
This alternative would require regulated facility operators to
continue to submit two printed copies of the Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals, and the COTP to continue to examine these manuals
and return them by mail. This alternative would also require facility
operators to maintain the manuals in a printed format near the marine
transfer areas of their facilities. This alternative would not result
in any cost savings to either industry or the Coast Guard. Therefore,
we rejected alternative 1.
Alternative 2--All Electronic Format Submissions
This alternative would amend regulations to require regulated
facility operators to submit only electronic copies of the Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals, and the COTP to examine these manuals
(and amendments) and return them only through email or other electronic
means. Facility operators would not be permitted the option of
submitting printed documents. Facilities would have the discretion to
keep Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals in either printed or
electronic format at their marine transfer areas.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Electronic versions at the marine transfer areas of
facilities will be on electronic devices that must comply with
applicable electrical safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility operators may experience cost savings greater than
projected under alternative 1 or the alternative chosen in this final
rule (alternative 3) because they would be required to submit their
documentation electronically and to maintain electronic copies of all
their manuals in the marine transfer areas. Savings from this
alternative would
[[Page 43923]]
result from the facilities not having to assemble and mail printed
documentation to the COTP. Cost savings would also result from
facilities no longer needing to assemble and physically place printed
documentation for the marine transfer areas. Alternative 2 would result
in greater cost savings related to printing and mailing than
alternative 1, as all regulated facilities would submit documents
electronically.
However, alternative 2 also has the highest potential cost
associated with its implementation. This is because a number of
facilities may not currently have the required information technology
(IT) infrastructure to permit the use of electronic documentation at
their marine transfer areas. For those facilities without the pre-
existing IT infrastructure, building the infrastructure could prove
expensive compared to the cost savings from reducing the amount of
printed manuals and amendments. Factors affecting the building of such
IT infrastructure (not all inclusively) include the following:
<bullet> The size of the facility;
<bullet> How many marine transfer areas there are (each area must
have an Operations Manual, and transfer areas in LNG and LHG facilities
must also have an Emergency Manual);
<bullet> The number and type of products transferred at the
facility;
<bullet> The types of transfer operations occurring at the
facility; and
<bullet> Any pre-existing infrastructure that can already
facilitate accessing and using electronic documentation (such as ``Wi-
Fi'' or hardwired broadband connections).
Based on these factors, for some facilities the total costs
required to access electronic documents could exceed the cost savings
from switching to electronic documentation. In addition, these IT costs
could disproportionately affect facilities that are relatively small in
terms of revenue. We believe that imposing these additional costs on
such small entities would be financially burdensome; therefore, we
rejected alternative 2.
Alternative 3--Option To Use Either Printed or Electronic Manuals
Alternative 3 is the selected alternative for this rulemaking. This
alternative explicitly states that facility operators may submit the
required Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and amendments either
in print or electronic format. In addition, if submitting the required
documents in print, only one copy is required. In this alternative,
facilities facing higher IT improvement costs could continue to use
printed manuals and submissions. Hence, this alternative will lead to
the highest net cost savings of the three alternatives.
For these reasons, alternative 3 is the preferred alternative. We
provide a discussion of this alternative below.
Affected Population
We identified 121 LNG and LHG facilities that could be potentially
impacted by this regulation, based on a search of the Coast Guard's
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database.\14\
We also identified 2,497 MTR facilities that could be potentially
impacted. A discussion follows describing how the impacted population
itself was reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The search of MISLE was conducted on November 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG and LHG facilities transfer liquefied natural gas and liquefied
hazardous gas from vessels to the shore or from the shore to vessels.
MTR facilities transfer oil or hazardous material in bulk from vessels
to the shore or from the shore to vessels. Operations Manuals provide
information relating to LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities, such as physical
characteristics (including plans and maps), descriptions of transfer
systems and mooring areas, and diagrams of piping, electrical systems,
control rooms, and security systems.\15\ Emergency Manuals include
information relating to, among other items, emergency shutdown
procedures, descriptions of and operating procedures for fire and other
emergency equipment, first-aid procedures and stations, and emergency
response procedures.\16\ Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals vary
in terms of size, anywhere from 0.5-inch, three-ring binders containing
50 pages, to 3-inch, three-ring binders.\17\ We have estimated the 3-
inch, three-ring binders to be an average of 514 pages in length.\18\
The 0.5-inch manuals are the most common size, accounting for the
majority of manuals.\19\ Therefore, in our cost savings estimate, we
assumed that all manuals are 0.5-inch, three-ring binders of 50 pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A full list of what Operations Manuals need to cover for
LNG and LHG facilities is in 33 CFR 127.305 and 127.1305, and for
MTR facilities in 33 CFR 154.310.
\16\ The full list of items that Emergency Manuals need to cover
for LNG facilities can be found in 33 CFR 127.307, and for LHG
facilities in 33 CFR 127.1307.
\17\ This information was obtained from Coast Guard SMEs in CG-
FAC.
\18\ The estimate of 514 was based on the maximum size capacity
of five 3-inch three-ring binders found at five office supply stores
on the internet. The mean capacity of these five binders was
calculated by CG-FAC to come to 514 pages. The five stores included
the following: (1) Office Depot (<a href="https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/502062/Wilson-Jones-Binder-3-Rings-36percent/">https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/502062/Wilson-Jones-Binder-3-Rings-36percent/</a>); (2) Staples
(<a href="https://www.staples.com/Simply-3-Inch-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Black-26857/product_1319200">https://www.staples.com/Simply-3-Inch-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Black-26857/product_1319200</a>, accessed November 5, 2019, 460 pages); (3)
Walmart (<a href="https://www.walmart.com/ip/Universal-Economy-Round-Ring-View-Binder-3-Capacity-Black-UNV20991/21454956">https://www.walmart.com/ip/Universal-Economy-Round-Ring-View-Binder-3-Capacity-Black-UNV20991/21454956</a>); (4) Target (<a href="https://www.target.com/p/avery-3-34-one-touch-slant-rings-600-sheet-capacity-heavy-duty-view-binder-white/-/A-14432722">https://www.target.com/p/avery-3-34-one-touch-slant-rings-600-sheet-capacity-heavy-duty-view-binder-white/-/A-14432722</a>); and (5) Amazon
(<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wilson-Jones-Binder-Basic-W362-49W/dp/B0001N9WM8/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=3+ring+3+inch+binder&qid=1573433167&sr=8-5">https://www.amazon.com/Wilson-Jones-Binder-Basic-W362-49W/dp/B0001N9WM8/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=3+ring+3+inch+binder&qid=1573433167&sr=8-5</a>,
accessed on November 5, 2019, 550 pages).
\19\ This information was obtained from Coast Guard SMEs in CG-
FAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to both Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals are
intended to keep those manuals up to date.\20\ Their length depends on
the information required to be updated. If the information is
significant, these amendments may be as long as the original document
submitted to the COTP. If the change is relatively minor, the
amendments may only be a few pages. If the amendments are only a few
pages, they are submitted to the COTP as individual pages. The COTP
then examines those pages and, after determining their adequacy,
inserts them into the previous edition of the Operations Manual or
Emergency Manual.\21\ If the facility sends the amendment in electronic
form, the new pages that supersede the old can be inserted into the
electronic document that the COTP has (much the same way that pages can
be inserted into PDF documents). On the other hand, if the amendment is
sent in paper format and the COTP deems it ``adequate,'' the COTP can
insert new pages into the previous edition of the manual to replace the
pages that were originally deemed ``inadequate.'' Coast Guard SMEs
estimated that 80 percent of amendments to Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals consist of 5-page inserts, while 20 percent consist
of documents that are as long as full-length Operations Manuals or
Emergency Manuals. In our cost savings estimate, we assumed that all
amendments would be five pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ A complete list of items that must be kept current can be
found in 33 CFR 127.1305 for LHG facilities Operations Manuals. For
LNG facilities, the complete list can be found in 33 CFR 127.305 for
Operations Manuals, and in 33 CFR 127.307 for Emergency Manuals. For
MTR facilities, 33 CFR 154.300(b) and 154.300(b)(1) state, ``the
facility operator shall maintain the operations manual so that it is
. . . current.''
\21\ The original pages that the newly submitted pages replace,
assuming the document was in paper format, are disposed of by the
COTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We examined MISLE data between 2009 and 2019 (inclusively) to
determine that an annual average of 60
[[Page 43924]]
instances \22\ of Emergency Manuals, Operations Manuals, and amendments
are filed by LNG and LHG facilities per year, representing an average
of 18 instances for manuals and 42 for amendments.\23\ These numbers
differ from the numbers shown in appendices A and B in the Collection
of Information Under Review by the Office of Management and Budget; OMB
Control Number: 1625-0049.\24\ That information collected, titled
``Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and
Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG),'' shows 8 instances of manuals and 14
instances of amendments, for a total of 22 instances of manuals and
amendments filed.\25\ This difference (60 versus 22) is attributable to
the fact that the MISLE data for the collection of information and this
RA were pulled on different dates. We performed the MISLE pull for this
RA on November 18, 2019, while the MISLE pull for the collection of
information occurred prior to its date of publication, August 30, 2019.
As a result, the total LNG and LHG facility populations, as well as the
individual manual and amendment numbers, were different. The collection
of information found a combined LNG and LHG population of 108, while we
found 121. Hence, this RA projects larger numbers of manuals and
amendments than did the collection of information.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ An instance is when a document is filed. It does not
necessarily correspond to the number of copies of manuals filed. The
reason we use instances instead of the number of copies filed is
that instances serve as a better basis to estimate the number of
copies of documents required by different scenarios later in this
RA. For example, under current regulations two copies of each type
of document must be filed in printed format, but under this final
rule facility operators will have the option to submit only one copy
if they submit in printed format, or zero if they submit in
electronic format.
\23\ This number is rounded to the nearest whole number, as are
all population numbers provided below.
\24\ This Collection of Information was published in the Federal
Register at 84 FR 45783 on August 30, 2019.
\25\ In the collection of information, there were instances of 6
manuals and 12 amendments filed for LHG facilities and instances of
2 manuals and 2 amendments for LNG facilities, for a total of 8
instances of manuals and 14 instances of amendments and a total of
22 documents overall.
\26\ The reason for the difference between the number of
facilities in Collection of Information Under Review by Office of
Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0049 and that
calculated in this rulemaking (22 versus 60) rests with the
differing methods the numbers of manuals and amendments were
estimated between the collection of information and the rulemaking.
In the collection of information, the number of amendments was
estimated to grow at an annual rate of 3 percent of the rate of
facilities and the number of amendments was estimated to grow at 6
percent the rate of facilities. In the rulemaking, the number of
amendments and manuals was based on the actual number that was in
the MISLE database. Once the final rule is published, the Coast
Guard plans to synchronize the method used to estimate the number of
amendments and manuals for the collection of information with that
used in the rulemaking (i.e., the 3 percent and 6 percent growth
rates will be replaced with data from the MISLE database).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard SMEs estimated that 90 percent of LNG/LHG facilities
will submit their documentation to the Coast Guard electronically.
Thus, of the annual impacted population of 60 LNG/LHG facilities, we
estimate the affected annual population of LNG/LHG facilities to be 54
per year submitting their documentation in electronic form, with the
remaining 10 percent, or 6 facilities, submitting their documentation
in print form.
The MISLE pull for this RA found the average number of instances of
Operations Manuals and amendments filed by MTR facilities for the same
period (2009-2019) to be 703.\27\ MTR facilities are only required to
file Operations Manuals and amendments, not Emergency Manuals and
amendments. Of those 703 instances of manuals and amendments, there
were an average of 261 instances of manuals and 442 amendments
annually. Assuming each submission is for a unique facility (for an
annually impacted MTR population of 703), and since Coast Guard SMEs in
CG-FAC estimated that 75 percent of MTR facilities will submit their
documentation in an electronic format, we estimated a regulated
population of 527 MTR facilities electing electronic submission
annually, with 25 percent of MTR facilities, or another 176
facilities,\28\ projected to submit their documentation in print form
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ We conducted this search of MISLE on November 18, 2019.
\28\ This number is rounded up to the closest whole number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of annually impacted facilities, by LNG/LHG and MTR
facility, as well as the number of different types of manuals and
amendments by facility type, is summarized in table 4.
Table 4--Affected Population and Number of Instances of Manuals and Amendments Filed Annually
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Total Total instances of Total instances of Total
Total instances of Total instances of operations and Total instances of operations and instances of
instances of operations and instances of operations and emergency instances of operations and emergency manual
Facility type operations and emergency documents emergency manual manuals filed emergency manual amendments
emergency manual filed manuals filed amendments electronically manuals filed amendments filed in print
manuals filed amendments electronically filed in print form filed in print form
filed electronically form
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG......................................... 18 42 60 16 38 54 2 4 6
MTR............................................. 261 442 703 196 332 527 65 111 176
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: all ``total'' numbers rounded to the closest whole number
Cost Savings Components
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the final rule's cost savings for the
private sector and for the Coast Guard. Table 5 provides the private
sector's cost savings for the pertinent maritime facilities of the
affected population (LNG/LHG and MTR facilities) as well as by the four
different cost savings categories estimated. Table 6 summarizes the
Coast Guard's cost savings.
Table 5--Annual Cost Savings of Final Rule to Private Sector by
Population and Cost Savings Element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost
Population Cost savings element savings
($2020) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG Facilities............. Savings from not having \3\ $579
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) to mail to
the COTP.\2\
[[Page 43925]]
Savings from not having \5\ 242
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) for
placement at facility
marine transfer
areas.\4\
Savings from not having \6\ 1,011
to mail manuals (and
amendments) to the
COTP.
Savings from not having \7\ 1,634
to place printed
manuals (and
amendments) at
facility marine
transfer areas.
----------------------------------------
Total Annual LNG/LHG ....................... 8 3,466
Facility Cost Savings.
MTR Facilities................. Savings from not having \10\ 11,839
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) to mail to
the COTP.\9\
Savings from not having \12\ 2,120
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) for
placements at facility
marine transfer
areas.\11\
Savings from not having \13\ 14,312
to mail manuals (and
amendments) to the
COTP.
Savings from not having \14\ 7,658
to place printed
manuals (and
amendments) at
facility marine
transfer areas.
---------------
Total Annual MTR Facility ....................... \15\ 35,929
Cost Savings.
---------------
Total.................. ....................... \16\ 39,395
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rounded to closest whole dollar.
\2\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing and labor required to
assemble.
\3\ From table 10.
\4\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing and labor required to
assemble. It is also assumed that each facility, as per Coast Guard
SME assessment, has an average of two marine transfer areas.
\5\ From table 14.
\6\ From table 12.
\7\ From table 16.
\8\ Total figure may not be exact due to rounding.
\9\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing, and labor required to
assemble.
\10\ From table 11.
\11\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing and labor required to
assemble. It is also assumed that each facility, as per Coast Guard
SME assessment, has an average of two marine transfer areas.
\12\ From table 15.
\13\ From table 13.
\14\ From table 17.
\15\ Total figure may not be exact due to rounding.
\16\ Total figure may not be exact due to rounding.
Table 6--Annual Cost Savings of Final Rule to Coast Guard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost
Population Administrative cost savings
savings element ($2020) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard.................... Savings from not having \2\ $8,616
to mail printed
manuals (and
amendments) back to
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rounded to closest whole dollar.
\2\ From table 2.
Cost Savings Methodology, Calculations, and Estimates
We separated the analysis of cost savings for this rulemaking into
three sections. The first examines the cost savings for the private
sector. The second discusses the cost savings for the Coast Guard. The
third provides an aggregated summary of the cost savings as well as the
estimates on a discounted basis.
Private Sector Cost Savings
We separated cost savings for the private sector into two
categories. The first involves the cost savings associated with
facility operators having the option to submit Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals (and amendments) in electronic format. The second
involves the option to place electronic versions of their Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals (and amendments) at their marine transfer
areas.
Cost Savings From the Reduced Numbers of Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals (and Amendments) Sent to the Coast Guard
LNG and LHG facility operators are currently required to submit two
copies of their Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments
to the COTP.\29\ Generally, they are not sent at the same time.\30\ MTR
facility operators are currently required to submit two copies of their
Operations
Manuals and amendments.\31\ Although current regulations do not
explicitly state that the copies submitted must be printed, the wording
and context suggest the use of printed documents,
[[Page 43926]]
and current industry practice is to submit printed documents.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 33 CFR 127.019(a) and (b).
\30\ As these documents are usually written by different
personnel and do not need to be received simultaneously, they are
generally not sent together.
\31\ 33 CFR 154.300(a).
\32\ The current regulation regarding the two-copy requirement
was issued in 1988 for LNG and LHG facilities (53 FR 3370, Feb. 5,
1988), and in 1996 for MTR facilities (61 FR 41452, Aug. 8, 1996).
At that time, it was not possible to electronically send a document
as large and complicated as a complete Operations Manual or
Emergency Manual as an attachment via email or other electronic
means
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost savings components that make up the 0.5-inch binders
consist of the actual cost of the empty 0.5-inch, 3-ring binder, the
cost of 50 pages of paper, the cost of printing those 50 pages, and the
labor required to put the manual together. The cost of all these
elements, with the notable exception of labor, is the same whether the
manual is for an LNG or LHG facility or an MTR facility. In the NPRM,
we estimated that the cost of the empty 0.5-inch binders in 2019
dollars is $3.66, based on the mean for 0.5-inch binders from 5
different websites selling this item.\33\ Converting to 2020 dollars,
using the seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers, the figure is $3.71.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The five different websites were: (1) Office Depot (<a href="https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/765530/Aurora-EarthView-Round-Ring-Organization-Binder/">https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/765530/Aurora-EarthView-Round-Ring-Organization-Binder/</a>) ($5.99), (2) Staples (<a href="https://www.staples.com/Simply-5-inch-Light-Use-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Red-26852/product_1337664">https://www.staples.com/Simply-5-inch-Light-Use-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Red-26852/product_1337664</a>) ($3.29), (3) Walmart (<a href="https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-0-5-inch-Durable-Binder-Clearview-Cover-White/945565181">https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-0-5-inch-Durable-Binder-Clearview-Cover-White/945565181</a>)
($2.47), (4) Target (<a href="https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071">https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071</a>) ($2.59), and (5)
Amazon (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Avery-Economy-Binder-0-5-Inch-Round/dp/B0006SWEEG/ref=sr_1_6?qid=1583117388&refinements=p_n_feature_keywords_two_browse-bin%3A7103303011&s=office-products&sr=1-6">https://www.amazon.com/Avery-Economy-Binder-0-5-Inch-Round/dp/B0006SWEEG/ref=sr_1_6?qid=1583117388&refinements=p_n_feature_keywords_two_browse-bin%3A7103303011&s=office-products&sr=1-6</a>) ($4.60). The mean of all
these figures is $3.66. All websites cited were accessed on Nov. 10,
2019.
\34\ The specific series used was CUSR0000SA0 (seasonally
adjusted), downloaded from the BLS's Consumer Price Index seasonally
adjusted tables (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/seasonal-adjustment/home.htm">https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/seasonal-adjustment/home.htm</a>, accessed July 6, 2021), specifically from the link
associated with ``Revised seasonally adjusted indexes and factors,
2016-2029.'' From the downloaded Excel sheet, the mean index for
2020 was calculated at 258.8441 and for 2019 at 255.6525. Using
these two figures as the basis to estimate an price multiplier, we
derive (258.8441/255.6525 = 1.013). Multiplying the 2019 dollar
terms $3.66 by 1.013, the figure in 2020 dollar terms is derived
($2.66 x 1.013 = $3.708, rounded to $3.71).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, we estimated the cost of 50 sheets of copier paper to
be 62.5 cents, based on the mean for boxes of 500 pages from 5
different supply stores.\35\ Converting to 2020 dollars, we obtain
$0.63.\36\ In the NPRM, we found the cost to print 50 pages in black
and white to be $2.23.\37\ Converting to 2020 terms, the figure is
$2.26.\38\ Combining the 2020 dollar terms, the sum is $6.60.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The websites were: (1) Office Depot (<a href="https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/841195/Office-Depot-Copy-And-Print-Paper/">https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/841195/Office-Depot-Copy-And-Print-Paper/</a>) ($8.29), (2) Staples (<a href="https://www.staples.com/500+ream+paper/directory_500%20ream%20paper?sby=1">https://www.staples.com/500+ream+paper/directory_500%20ream%20paper?sby=1</a>) ($5.79), (3)
Walmart (<a href="https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Copy-Paper-8-5x11-92-Bright-20-lb-1-ream-500-Sheets/487634010">https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Copy-Paper-8-5x11-92-Bright-20-lb-1-ream-500-Sheets/487634010</a>) ($3.97), (4) Amazon
(<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hammermill-Recycled-Printer-Letter-086790R/dp/B009ZMP31K/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=500+ream+paper&qid=1573437715&sr=8-6">https://www.amazon.com/Hammermill-Recycled-Printer-Letter-086790R/dp/B009ZMP31K/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=500+ream+paper&qid=1573437715&sr=8-6</a>) ($9.20),
and (5) Target (<a href="https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071">https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071</a>) ($3.99). The mean of
these five figures is $6.25. Dividing $6.25 by 500 pages results in
a figure of .0125 cents per page. That amount multiplied by 50 pages
gives us a cost of 62.5 cents.
\36\ $0.625 x 1.013 = $0.633, rounded to $0.63.
\37\ This cost is found in ``Ink-onomics: Can you Save Money by
Spending More on Your Printer,'' PCWorld, May 2, 2012 (<a href="https://www.pcworld.com/article/254899/ink_onomics_can_you_save_money_by_spending_more_on_your_printer_.html">https://www.pcworld.com/article/254899/ink_onomics_can_you_save_money_by_spending_more_on_your_printer_.html</a>
) was found to be 3.9 cents per page for printers costing over $200.
This May 2012 dollar figure was converted to $2019 using the Bureau
of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, Table
1.1.4 Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product, Annual Series, last
revised on April 29, 2020 (<a href="https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1910=x&0=-99&1921=survey&1903=4&1904=2009&1905=2018&1906=a&1911=0">https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1910=x&0=-99&1921=survey&1903=4&1904=2009&1905=2018&1906=a&1911=0</a>) as a gross
domestic product. This calculation can be accessed by the ``modify''
button on the right, choosing ``annual'' series, and then ``refresh
table.'' The GDP deflator for 2012 was 100, and for 2019, 112.348.
Hence, 3.9 cents was increased by 12.348 percent to yield a figure
of 4.45 cents (rounded to closest whole cent). Multiplying this
figure by 50 (for the number of pages) yields, in turn, $2.23 for 50
pages (rounded to closest whole cent).
\38\ $2.23 x 1.013 = $2.258, rounded to $2.26.
\39\ $3.71 + $0.63 + $2.26 = $6.60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the labor costs between LNG/LHG and MTR facilities are
different, the labor component of assembling these manuals also differ.
According to Coast Guard SMEs, as well as the collection of
information, OMB Control Number 1625-0049, ``Waterfront Facilities
Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Hazardous Gas,'' clerical
workers assemble manuals at LNG and LHG facilities. The BLS website has
no specific labor category for clerical workers under North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry 483000 (Water
Transportation). The closest we were able to find was ``Office Clerks,
General'' (Occupational Code 43-9061).\40\ The BLS gave the mean hourly
wage for this category of labor as $21.32.\41\ As wages account for
only a portion of total employee costs (employee benefits account for
the other part), we adjusted wages to take benefits into account. Using
the BLS U.S. Department of Labor News Release for March 18, 2021 (USDL-
21-0437), benefits for employees in the ``Production, Transportation
and Material Moving'' sector of the economy, private sector, accounted
for $10.92 per hour, or 51 percent of wages.\42\ Thus, we estimated the
fully burdened or loaded wage rate, at $32.19 per hour for LNG/LHG
facilities.\43\ In the NPRM, we estimated the fully burdened wage rate
at $30.28, a difference of $1.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 483000-Water Transportation,''
(<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/May/naics3_483000.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/May/naics3_483000.htm</a>), downloaded
April 16, 2021.
\41\ Ibid.
\42\ Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation news release (USDL-21-0437), March 18, 2021 (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf</a>), table 5, page 9, referenced
April 18, 2021. According to this document, for the ``production,
transportation and material moving'' industry, benefits were $10.92
per hour while wages were $21.36 (for a ratio of benefits to wages
of 51 percent).
\43\ $21.32 plus ($21.32 multiplied by 51%) equals $32.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Coast Guard SMEs, as well as the latest collection of
information, OMB Control Number 1625-0093, ``Facilities Transferring
Oil and Hazardous Material in Bulk--Letter of Intent and Operations
Manual,'' MTR facilities use general and operations managers to
assemble Operations Manuals. The BLS website, under NAICS industry
483000 (Water Transportation), reports an hourly mean wage of $70.65
for general and operations managers (Occupational Code 11-1021).\44\ As
stated previously, according to the BLS, employees in the ``Production,
Transportation and Material Moving'' sector of the economy, private
sector, have benefits corresponding to 51 percent of wages in that
industry.\45\ Hence, the loaded wage rate for general and operations
managers is $106.82 per hour.\46\ In the NPRM, we estimated the fully
burdened wage rate at $100.03, a difference of $6.79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ ``May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 483000-Water Transportation,''
(<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/May/naics3_483000.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/May/naics3_483000.htm</a>), downloaded
April 16, 2021.
\45\ Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation news release (USDL-21-0437), March 18, 2021 (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf</a>), table 5, page 9, referenced
April 18, 2021. According to this document, for the ``production,
transportation and material moving'' industry, benefits were $10.92
per hour while wages were $21.36 (for a ratio of benefits to wages
of 51 percent). $21.32 plus ($21.32 multiplied by 51%) equals
$32.19.
\46\ $70.65 plus ($70.65 multiplied by 51% equals $106.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the assembly of a 0.5-inch, 50-page manual, we
performed the task ourselves and found that it took an average of 5.12
minutes (or 0.09 hours).\47\ As a result, the labor cost of assembling
a manual for an LNG or LHG facility came to $2.90.\48\ For an MTR
[[Page 43927]]
facility, the cost came to $9.61.\49\ Thus, for an LNG or LHG facility,
we estimated the total cost of assembling a 0.5-inch binder for an
Operations Manual or Emergency Manual to be $9.50.\50\ These are the
costs associated with producing one copy of an Operations Manual or an
Emergency Manual (we estimated that they cost the same to assemble).
For an MTR facility Operations Manual, we estimated the total cost to
assemble to be $16.21.\51\ All binder assembly costs are shown in table
7. In the NPRM, in contrast, we estimated the cost to assemble an LNG/
LHG binder at $9.25 and the cost to assemble the MTR facility binder at
$15.52.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ This time estimate is based on the average amount of time
the Coast Guard consumed to print 50 pages and assemble them in a
0.5-inch 3-ring binder.
\48\ 0.09 hours multiplied by $32.19 equals $2.90.
\49\ 0.09 hours multiplied by $106.82 equals $9.61.
\50\ $3.71 (cost of binder) + $0.63 (cost of blank paper) +
$2.26 (printing cost) + $2.90 (labor cost of assembly) = $9.50.
\51\ $3.71 (cost of binder) + $0.63 (cost of blank paper) +
$2.26 (printing cost) + $9.61 (labor cost of assembly) = $16.21.
\52\ These numbers can be found in table 5 of the NPRM.
Table 7--Cost To Assemble 0.5-Inch Binders for LNG/LHG and MTR Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5-Inch binder assembly costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binder Print Printing Labor Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG........................................ $3.71 $0.63 $2.26 $2.90 $9.50
MTR............................................ 3.71 0.63 2.26 9.61 16.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As amendments to both Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals are
usually 5 pages, in the NPRM we estimated the cost of paper to total
$0.06 \53\ and the cost of printing to total $0.22.\54\ Due to
rounding, those figures do not change when expressed in 2020 dollar
terms.\55\ The estimated total cost of amendments, other than labor and
shipping, is $0.28 per amendment. These costs are the same regardless
of whether the amendment is for an LNG or LHG facility or an MTR
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The mean cost of a 500-page ream of paper based on 5 prices
at different retailers was found to be $6.25. Dividing $6.25 by 500
yields a per-sheet price of 1.25 cents per page. Multiplying 1.25 by
5 yields 6.25 cents, which is rounded down to 6 cents.
\54\ From table 6 in the NPRM.
\55\ $0.06 x 1.013 = $0.06078, rounded to $0.06. $0.22 x 1.013 =
$0.2228, rounded to $0.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the difference in labor costs between LNG/LHG facilities and
MTR facilities, the labor costs for assembling amendments differs for
facilities of different types. As stated previously, we found the labor
cost to be $70.65 per hour for LNG/LHG facilities and $106.82 for MTR
facilities. We found that printing 5 pages and assembling them for
mailing took 1.25 minutes (0.02 hours). Hence, we estimated the labor
costs for LNG/LHG facilities at $1.41 and for MTR facilities at
$2.14.<SUP>56 57</SUP> The total cost of creating a 5-page amendment
for an LNG/LHG facility is $1.69 per document and for MTR facility is
$2.42. <SUP>58 59</SUP> These costs are detailed in table 8. In the
NPRM, we estimated the associated costs at $1.60 and $2.28.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ $70.65 multiplied by 0.02 equals $1.41.
\57\ $106.82 multiplied by 0.02 equals $2.14.
\58\ $0.06 (cost of paper) plus $0.22 (cost to print pages) plus
$1.41 (labor cost to assemble) equals $1.69.
\59\ $0.06 (cost of paper) plus $0.22 (cost to print pages) plus
$2.00 (labor cost to assemble) equals $2.42.
\60\ From table 6 in the NPRM.
Table 8--Cost To Assemble 5-Page Amendments for LNG/LHG and MTR Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Page amendment assembly costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility type Paper Printing Labor Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG......................................... $0.06 $0.22 $1.41 $1.69
MTR............................................. 0.06 0.22 2.14 2.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost of assembling each manual and amendment, we
also considered shipping and handling costs. We calculated shipping and
handling costs for both scenarios because, currently, there are
situations when only one copy of a document needs to be mailed and
other situations when two are needed.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ For example, currently, when documents are initially
submitted to the Coast Guard, two copies of each are currently
required to be sent, but when documents are required to be re-
submitted to the Coast Guard to correct inadequacies, only one copy
of a document needs to be sent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it is a legal requirement for these facilities to send
their documents to the COTP, we assumed that the manuals and amendments
are sent with a mail service that permits tracking. We also assumed
that facilities use a cost-effective ground shipping method.\62\ As of
June 7, 2021, there were 41 COTP zones.\63\ All of these sites are
clustered around shipping points in order to ensure COTPs can perform
their functions. Hence, no facility should be very far, geographically,
from a shipping point. We assumed that the manuals and amendments are
sent via a shipping service such as UPS or FedEx. We assumed shipping
distances to correspond to zone 2 distances in the UPS and FedEx
pricing guides, as this is the closest shipping distance price
point.\64\ Current regulations require that two copies be submitted to
the COTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The exact amount of time depends on the relevant applicable
section of the regulations: 33 CFR 127.019(b) and 145.325(c) give
facilities a time period of 30 days to file, 33 CFR 145.320(a)(1)
and 145.320(b)(1) give facilities 45 days to file, and 33 CFR
145.325(b) gives facilities 60 days to file.
\63\ ArcGIS has a website listing the full set of 41 zones
(<a href="https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/geoplatform::us-coast-guard-uscg-captain-of-the-port-zones/explore?showTable=true">https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/geoplatform::us-coast-guard-uscg-captain-of-the-port-zones/explore?showTable=true</a>, downloaded July 6,
2021).
\64\ The UPS pricing guide used was ``2020 UPS Rate and Service
Guide, Daily Rates, updated October 5, 2020'' (<a href="https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf">https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf</a>, downloaded July 8, 2021);
the FedEx price guide was ``Federal Express Service Guide, January
6, 2020, updated September 28, 2020'' (<a href="https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2020.pdf">https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2020.pdf</a>,
downloaded July 7, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43928]]
Therefore, we calculated the shipping cost for two 0.5-inch
binders.\65\ The two 0.5-inch binders with 50 pages each have a total
estimated weight of 2.8 pounds, for a total of 5.6 pounds for a package
of two. Based on a 6-pound package, the average cost for these shipping
services was $10.19.\66\ In the NPRM, we estimated the cost at
$10.11.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ We estimated the weight of an empty 0.5-inch binder at 13
ounces, based on the mean weight of the same 5 binders used to
determine the mean cost of 0.5-inch binders. For the web pages for
those binders, where weight data was available, the mean was
estimated. The web pages were as follows: (1) <a href="https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/765530/Aurora-EarthView-Round-Ring-Organization-Binder/">https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/765530/Aurora-EarthView-Round-Ring-Organization-Binder/</a>; (2) <a href="https://www.staples.com/Simply-5-inch-Light-Use-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Red-26852/product_1337664">https://www.staples.com/Simply-5-inch-Light-Use-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Red-26852/product_1337664</a>; (3) <a href="https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-0-5-inch-Durable-Binder-Clearview-Cover-White/945565181">https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-0-5-inch-Durable-Binder-Clearview-Cover-White/945565181</a>; (4) <a href="https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071">https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071</a>; and (5) <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Avery-Economy-Binder-0-5-Inch-Round/dp/B0006SWEEG/ref=sr_1_6?qid=1583117388&refinements=p_n_feature_keywords_two_browse-bin%3A7103303011&s=office-products&sr=1-6">https://www.amazon.com/Avery-Economy-Binder-0-5-Inch-Round/dp/B0006SWEEG/ref=sr_1_6?qid=1583117388&refinements=p_n_feature_keywords_two_browse-bin%3A7103303011&s=office-products&sr=1-6</a>. We estimated the weight
of the 50 pages at 32 ounces, based on the five web pages that we
used to determine the average price of paper. The weight of a 500-
page ream of paper, on each of these websites, was 320 ounces (50/
500 x 320 = 32 ounces). Those five websites were: (1) <a href="https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/841195/Office-Depot-Copy-And-Print-Paper/">https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/841195/Office-Depot-Copy-And-Print-Paper/</a>; (2) <a href="https://www.staples.com/500+ream+paper/directory_500%20ream%20paper?sby=1">https://www.staples.com/500+ream+paper/directory_500%20ream%20paper?sby=1</a>; (3) <a href="https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Copy-Paper-8-5x11-92-Bright-20-lb-1-ream-500-Sheets/487634010">https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Copy-Paper-8-5x11-92-Bright-20-lb-1-ream-500-Sheets/487634010</a>; (4) <a href="https://www.target.com/p/500ct-letter-printer-paper-white-up-up-153/-/A-75001545">https://www.target.com/p/500ct-letter-printer-paper-white-up-up-153/-/A-75001545</a>; (5) <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hammermill-Recycled-Printer-Letter-086790R/dp/B009ZMP31K/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=500+ream+paper&qid=1573437715&sr=8-6">https://www.amazon.com/Hammermill-Recycled-Printer-Letter-086790R/dp/B009ZMP31K/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=500+ream+paper&qid=1573437715&sr=8-6</a>. Therefore,
the weight of a single 0.5-inch manual is as follows: 32 ounces + 13
= 45 ounces = 2.8 pounds.
\66\ ``2020 UPS Rate and Service Guide, Daily Rates, updated
October, 5 2020,'' p. 68 (<a href="https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf">https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf</a>, downloaded July 8, 2021), shows UPS charged
$10.19; ``Federal Express Service Guide, January 6, 2020, updated
September 28, 2020,'' p. 107 (<a href="https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2021.pdf">https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2021.pdf</a>) shows that
FedEx charged $10.19. Hence, the average was $10.19.
\67\ See table 7 of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, facilities send back two copies of the revised version
of the Operations Manual or Emergency Manual when the COTP determines
that the manual is inadequate. Under the final rule, only one copy of
the document must be sent back to the COTP, in either print or
electronic format.
We calculated the shipping costs for mailing a single 0.5-inch
Operations Manual or Emergency Manual. We estimated that a single 0.5-
inch manual weighs 2.8 pounds. For mailing purposes, UPS and FedEx
charge the cost associated with a 3-pound item. The average cost of
these mailing services is $9.25.\68\ In the NPRM, we estimated the cost
at $9.56.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ ``2020 UPS Rate and Service Guide, Daily Rates, updated
October, 5 2020,'' p. 68 (<a href="https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf">https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf</a>, downloaded July 8, 2021), shows UPS charged
$9.25; ``Federal Express Service Guide, January 6, 2020, updated
September 28, 2020,'' p. 107 (<a href="https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2021.pdf">https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2021.pdf</a>) shows that
FedEx charged $9.25. Hence, the average was $9.25.
\69\ See table 7 in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to shipping costs associated with amendments, we made
many of the same assumptions as for shipping and handling 0.5-inch
manuals. For example, we assumed that UPS or FedEx ground shipping is
the selected service. As either one or two 5-page amendments weigh less
than 1 pound, the shipping cost is the same whether one or two are
mailed together. The cost is $8.23 for both UPS and FedEx (for a mean
of $8.23).\70\ In the NPRM, we estimated the associated cost for
shipping one or two amendments at $8.88.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ ``2020 UPS Rate and Service Guide, Daily Rates, updated
October, 5 2020,'' p. 68 (<a href="https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf">https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/daily_rates.pdf</a>, downloaded July 8, 2021), shows UPS charged
$8.23; ``Federal Express Service Guide, January 6, 2020, updated
September 28, 2020,'' p. 107 (<a href="https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2021.pdf">https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2021.pdf</a>) shows that
FedEx charged $8.23. Hence, the average was $8.23.
\71\ See table 7 in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, facilities must handle these manuals as part of the
shipping process. As stated previously, labor costs differ between LNG/
LHG facilities and MTR facilities. For LNG/LHG facilities, the loaded
hourly labor rate is $70.65, and for MTR facilities it is $106.82. We
estimated the time required to assemble manuals to be 5 minutes (0.08
hours),\72\ rounded to the closest whole minute, for assembling either
one manual or two.\73\ From this, we estimated labor time for
assembling manuals to mail to the COTP to cost $5.65 \74\ for LNG/LHG
facilities and $8.55 for MTR facilities.\75\ In the NPRM, the
associated numbers were $5.27 for LNG/LHG facilities and $8.00 for MTR
facilities.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ This includes time to obtain a box, package up the manual
or manuals, complete the required mailing paperwork, and place it
into the office ``out'' mailbox.
\73\ Based on time samples we ran, we estimated that 4.8 minutes
were needed to remove the paper from the copier, put it in an
envelope, fill out the documentation and place it in the office
``out'' mailbox for one manual. To package and complete 2 manuals,
we estimated that 5.1 minutes will be required. Rounding both to 5
minutes, this totals an estimated 0.08 hours.
\74\ $70.65 multiplied by 0.08 equals $5.65.
\75\ $106.82 multiplied by 0.08 equals $8.55.
\76\ See table 8 of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor handling costs for amendments are also slightly different due
to the labor cost differences between LNG/LHG and MTR facilities. We
estimated that handling a package that contains either one or two 5-
page amendments, rounded to the nearest whole minute, takes 4 minutes
(0.07 hours), regardless of facility type. As a result, we estimated
labor handling costs for packages that hold one or two amendments to be
$4.95 \77\ for LNG/LHG facilities and $7.48 for MTR facilities.\78\ In
the NPRM, the associated figures were $4.61 for LGN/LHG facilities and
$7.00 for MTR facilities.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 0.07 multiplied by $70.65 equals $4.95.
\78\ 0.07 multiplied by $106.82 equals $7.48.
\79\ See table 8 of NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shipping and handling costs for all types of documents by both
LNG/LHG facilities and MTR facilities are summarized in table 9. Table
9 includes not only these costs for the final rule but also the NPRM.
The NPRM numbers are in parentheses immediately beneath the final rule
figures.
Table 9--Shipping and Handling Costs by Facility and Document Type
[Final Rule and NPRM]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document type Shipping cost Handling (labor costs) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG Facility Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations Manuals and Emergency $9.25 (NPRM: $9.56).... $5.65 (NPRM: $5.27).... $14.90 (NPRM: $14.83).
Manuals (one 0.5-inch binder) for
LNG/LHG facilities.
Operations Manuals and Emergency $10.19 (NPRM: $10.11).. $5.65 (NPRM: $5.27).... $15.84 (NPRM: $15.38).
Manuals (two 0.5-inch binders) for
LNG/LHG facilities.
Amendments (one or two 5-page $8.23 (NPRM: $8.88).... $4.95 (NPRM: $4.61).... $13.18 (NPRM: $13.49).
amendments) for LNG/LHG facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43929]]
MTR Facility Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations Manuals (one 0.5-inch $9.25 (NPRM: $9.56).... $8.55 (NPRM: $8.00).... $17.80 (NPRM: $17.56).
binder) for MTR facilities.
Operations Manuals (two 0.5-inch $10.19 (NPRM: $10.11).. $8.55 (NPRM: $8.00).... $18.74 (NPRM: $18.11).
binders) for MTR facilities.
Amendments (one or two 5-page $8.23 (NPRM: $8.88).... $7.48 (NPRM: $7.00).... $15.71 (NPRM: $15.88).
amendments) for MTR facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final component of the cost savings estimate to industry is the
quantity of manuals and amendments that facilities are sending to the
COTP. LNG and LHG facilities are currently required to submit two
copies of their Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments
to the COTP, and MTR facilities are currently required to submit two
copies of their Operations Manuals (and amendments).\80\ The final rule
permits facilities to submit their documents in either print or
electronic format. Facility operators submitting electronically will
save the cost of assembling and shipping two copies of their documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Currently, two copies must be sent in initially, but if
copies of manuals or amendments need to be sent in again because
they were found inadequate by the Coast Guard, only one copy needs
to be sent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule also permits those facility operators submitting
printed documents to submit one copy instead of two. Hence, those
facilities will save the costs associated with producing and mailing
one copy of their manuals. Coast Guard SMEs estimated that 90 percent
of LNG/LHG facilities will submit their manuals and amendments
electronically, and 75 percent of MTR facilities will submit their
manuals and amendments electronically. The reason for this difference
is that LNG/LHG facilities are much more likely to be owned by large
multi-national conglomerates than MTR facilities. LNG/LHG facilities
are, therefore, more likely to fully utilize modern IT systems and be
able to submit their documents electronically.
During the review process of the initially submitted documents, the
COTP may reject submitted manuals and amendments due to inadequacies in
meeting the regulatory requirements put forth in 33 CFR part 127 for
LNG and LHG facilities, or part 154 for MTR facilities. Coast Guard
SMEs estimated that 30 percent of the total number of all manuals (not
amendments) sent by facilities are inadequate and must be returned for
corrections. For amendments, Coast Guard SMEs estimated that the
rejection rate is 15 percent. The reason for the lower rejection rate
is that amendments are based on previously approved documents and are
shorter, having a lower chance of containing inadequacies.
Under current regulations, facilities send back to the COTP two
copies, in printed format, to address an inadequacy. Under this rule,
facilities will instead, at their discretion, respond to an inadequacy
in either electronic or printed format. If they respond in printed
format, they will send only one copy instead of two and will save the
costs associated with producing and mailing one copy of the manual or
amendment. If they submit in electronic format, they will save the
costs associated with producing and mailing two copies of the document.
In summary, the cost savings for the private sector stem from the
following:
<bullet> LNG/LHG facilities initially printing and mailing fewer
printed Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and
amendments (5 pages) to the Coast Guard.
<bullet> LNG/LHG facilities printing and mailing fewer printed
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and
amendments (5 pages) that have to be resubmitted to the COTP.
<bullet> LNG/LHG facilities storing fewer printed Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and amendments (5
pages) at marine transfer areas.
<bullet> MTR facilities initially printing and mailing fewer
printed Operations Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and amendments (5 pages)
to the COTP.
<bullet> MTR facilities printing and mailing fewer printed
Operations Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and amendments that have to be
resubmitted to the COTP.
<bullet> MTR facilities storing fewer printed Operations Manuals
(0.5-inch binders) and amendments (5 pages) at marine transfer areas.
We calculated the cost savings by taking the annual population of
facilities, multiplied by the number of manuals or amendments per
facility, multiplied by the probability of the facility of
transitioning to electronic submissions, multiplied by production and
shipping costs. The cost savings from the changes are the same each
year. Tables 10 through 17 show the annual cost savings to facilities
by activity.
We predicted that 90 percent of LNG/LHG facilities will convert
their Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals to an electronic format.
The remaining 10 percent of LNG/LHG facilities will still experience
some cost savings since they will only be required to assemble one copy
of their manuals to initially mail to the COTP (instead of the current
two). Because these 10 percent of LNG/LHG facilities will continue to
send the same number of ``corrected'' printed manuals back to the COTP,
they will not experience cost savings with respect to these. The cost
elements to produce manuals and amendments were previously shown in
tables 7 and 8.
Table 10 shows the administrative cost savings to LNG/LHG
facilities from producing fewer Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals that are mailed to the Coast Guard. A brief summary of the
components of that table follows.
The term ``Instances of Documents Forecast to be submitted'' is an
annual average of the instances of manuals and amendments that have
been submitted over the past 10 years, based on MISLE data. A more
thorough discussion of these numbers can be found in the ``Affected
Population'' section of this preamble.
The ``Expected Rate of Electronic Documents Submitted'' is the
percentage of documents expected to be submitted in electronic format
instead of print. As stated previously, we based the terms on Coast
Guard SME input. The 27 percent figure reflects the SME estimate that
90 percent of manuals will be submitted in electronic format and that
30 percent of all manuals submitted to the COTP are found
inadequate.\81\ For this 27 percent of documents, there will be a cost
savings associated with the cost of producing and mailing two printed
manuals. Similarly, the 3
[[Page 43930]]
percent figure represents the estimated 10 percent of manuals that will
be submitted to the COTP in printed format, 30 percent of which will be
found inadequate.\82\ In this case, one printed document will be mailed
as opposed to the two under the current regulation, so these facilities
will save the cost of producing and mailing one printed copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 90 percent multiplied by 30 percent equals 27 percent.
\82\ 10 percent multiplied by 30 percent is 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, for amendments submitted electronically, the 14 percent
figure reflects the 90 percent estimate combined with the SME estimate
that 15 percent of all amendments submitted are found to not be
adequate.\83\ In this case, the cost savings would arise from no longer
having to produce and mail two printed copies. For amendments submitted
in printed format, the analogous percentage is 2 percent.\84\ In this
case, the associated cost savings would come from only needing to
produce and mail one printed copy instead of the previous two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 90 percent multiplied by 15 percent equals 13.5 percent,
rounded up to 14 percent.
\84\ 10 percent multiplied by 15 percent equals 1.5 percent,
rounded to 2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Reduction in Printed Documents Needed'' column reflects the
documents no longer needed as a result of the actions in the first
column (compared to current regulations). For example, in the first
row, when LNG/LHG facilities submit their manuals in electronic form,
as opposed to print, they will not need to submit two copies of
electronic manuals. As a result, these facilities will experience a
cost savings that is equal to the cost of assembling the documents. In
the second row, the facilities that continue to submit printed manuals
(instead of electronic) will experience a cost savings from having to
submit one document instead of two.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The current regulations require the submission of two
documents, while the final rule requires those facilities submitting
printed documentation to submit only one copy of each document
instead of two.
Table 10--Annual LNG/LHG Facility Production Cost Savings \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances of Expected rate Reduction in
LNG/LHG production cost savings documents of electronic printed Production Total
from: forecast to be documents documents costs (each) production
submitted submitted (%) needed \2\ cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals Submitted Electronically 18 90 2 $9.50 $307.80
Manuals Submitted in Printed .............. 10 1 9.50 17.10
Form...........................
Amendments Submitted 42 90 2 1.69 127.76
Electronically.................
Amendments Submitted in Printed .............. 10 1 1.69 7.10
Form...........................
Inadequate Manuals Submitted 18 27 2 9.50 92.34
Electronically.................
Inadequate Manuals Submitted in .............. 3 1 9.50 5.13
Printed Form...................
Inadequate Amendments Submitted 42 14 2 1.69 19.87
Electronically.................
Inadequate Amendments Submitted .............. 2 1 1.69 1.42
in Printed Form................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 578.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All figures rounded to the nearest whole cent.
\2\ All production cost figures cited in this column can be found in tables 7 and 8.
Table 11 presents the administrative cost savings to MTR facilities
from producing fewer Operations Manuals. Of MTR facilities, Coast Guard
SMEs estimated that 75 percent will convert their Operations Manuals to
an electronic format. The remaining 25 percent of MTR facilities will
still experience some administrative cost savings, since they will only
be required to produce and mail in one copy of their manuals (instead
of the current two).
With respect to inadequate documents that have been returned to
facilities by the COTP, facilities' cost savings will depend on whether
they send these back to the COTP in electronic or printed format. If
they send documents back in electronic format, facilities will
experience the cost savings associated with not having to produce and
mail two copies. If they send documents back in printed format, they
will only experience the cost savings associated with not having to
produce and mail one copy, as they will be sending one printed document
as opposed to the two required in the current regulations.
Table 11 shows that the instances of Operations Manuals forecast to
be required annually is 261 and the instances of amendments is 442,
based on MISLE data. A more thorough discussion of these numbers can be
found in the ``Affected Population'' section of this final rule.
The ``Expected Rate of Electronic Documents Submitted'' column
shows the percentage of documents expected to be submitted in
electronic format as opposed to print. For the manuals, this was 75
percent, and for the amendments, 25 percent. As stated previously,
these numbers were based on Coast Guard SME input.
We derived the 23 percent figure from SME estimates that 30 percent
of the manuals submitted electronically will require correction.\86\ We
derived the 8 percent figure in an analogous manner.\87\ Similarly, we
derived the 11 percent and 4 percent figures from the SME estimate that
15 percent of all amendments submitted are found to be
inadequate.<SUP>88 89</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 30 percent multiplied by 75 percent equals 23 percent
(rounded to closest whole percentage).
\87\ 30 percent multiplied by 25 percent equals 7.5 percent,
rounded to 8 percent.
\88\ 15 percent multiplied by 75 percent equals 11 percent
(rounded to closest whole percentage).
\89\ 15 percent multiplied by 25 percent equals 3.75 percent,
rounded to 4 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Reduction in Paper Documents Needed'' column reflects,
analogously to table 10, the decrease in each type of document required
in paper form. For inadequate documents that are submitted
electronically to the COTP, the cost of two paper documents is saved as
they will no longer need to send a printed copy. Those submitting
printed documents in response to inadequacies pointed out by the COTP
will experience a cost savings associated with one printed document, as
they will only be sending in one copy as opposed to the currently
required two.
[[Page 43931]]
Table 11--Annual MTR Facility Production Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances of Expected rate Reduction in
MTR facility production cost documents of electronic printed Production Total
savings from: forecast to be documents documents costs (each) production
submitted submitted (%) needed \1\ cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals Submitted Electronically 261 75 2 $16.21 $6,346.22
Manuals Submitted in Printed .............. 25 1 16.21 1,057.70
Form...........................
Amendments Submitted 442 75 2 2.42 1,604.46
Electronically.................
Amendments Submitted in Printed .............. 25 1 2.42 267.41
Form...........................
Inadequate Manuals Submitted 261 23 2 16.21 1,946.17
Electronically.................
Inadequate Manuals Submitted in .............. 8 1 16.21 338.46
Printed Form...................
Inadequate Amendments Submitted 442 11 2 2.42 235.32
Electronically.................
Inadequate Amendments Submitted .............. 4 1 2.42 42.79
in Printed Form................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 11,838.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All production cost figures in this column can be found in tables 5 and 6.
In addition to the cost savings associated with the need to
manufacture and assemble less documentation, there will also be a cost
savings associated with having to mail fewer documents to the COTP.
Tables 12 and 13 capture these savings by facility and document type.
The ``Instances of Documents Forecast to be Submitted'' column
represents the total number of each type of document expected to be
submitted to the COTP. The ``Expected Rate of Electronic Documents''
column shows the percentage of each type of document that is expected
to be submitted in electronic format. The ``Shipping Costs'' column
shows the costs associated with mailing and handling each type of
document.
Table 12--Annual LNG/LHG Facility Shipping and Handling Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances of Expected rate Shipping and
documents of electronic handling costs Total annual
LNG/LHG facility shipping cost savings from: forecast to be documents (each shipping cost
submitted submitted package) \1\ savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals Submitted Electronically................ 18 0.9 $15.84 $256.61
Manuals Submitted in Printed Form............... .............. 0.1 14.90 26.82
Amendments Submitted Electronically............. 42 0.9 13.18 498.20
Amendments Submitted in Printed Form............ .............. 0.1 13.18 55.36
Inadequate Manuals Submitted Electronically..... 18 0.27 15.84 76.98
Inadequate Manuals Submitted in Printed Form.... .............. 0.03 14.90 8.05
Inadequate Amendments Submitted Electronically.. 42 0.14 13.18 77.50
Inadequate Amendments Submitted in Printed Form. .............. 0.02 13.18 11.07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 1,010.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It should be noted that this is the cost per document set, not per document. For example, in the first row,
when manuals are submitted electronically, the cost of producing and mailing two documents would be saved
($15.84). In the second row, when a document is submitted in printed format, the cost of producing and mailing
only one document would be saved ($14.90). All numbers in this column are from table 9.
Table 13--Annual MTR Facility Shipping and Handling Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances of Expected rate
documents of electronic Shipping costs Total annual
MTR facility shipping cost savings from: forecast to be documents (each package shipping cost
submitted submitted \1\) savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals Submitted Electronically................ 261 0.75 $18.74 $3,668.36
Manuals Submitted in Printed Form............... .............. 0.25 17.80 1,161.45
Amendments Submitted Electronically............. 442 0.75 15.71 5,207.87
Amendments Submitted in Printed Form............ .............. 0.25 15.71 1,735.96
Inadequate Manuals Submitted Electronically..... 261 0.23 18.74 1,124.96
Inadequate Manuals Submitted in Printed Form.... .............. 0.08 17.80 371.66
Inadequate Amendments Submitted Electronically.. 442 0.11 15.71 763.82
Inadequate Amendments Submitted in Printed Form. .............. 0.04 15.71 277.75
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 14,311.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All numbers in this column are from table 9.
[[Page 43932]]
In tables 14 and 15, we show the cost savings to facilities that
maintain required documentation at marine transfer areas in electronic
format.\90\ These savings stem from assembling fewer Operations Manuals
and Emergency Manuals.\91\ According to Coast Guard SMEs, a facility
typically has two marine transfer areas. Each facility is currently
required to keep a copy of their manuals at each marine transfer area
in printed format, as the regulations that established this requirement
were published before it was commonly accepted practice (or even
possible) to access electronic records in a portable fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ This electronic documentation will be accessed via a device
such as an electronic tablet.
\91\ LNG/LHG facilities must have Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals at these locations, and MTR facilities have
Operations Manuals only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard SMEs projected that LNG/LHG facilities have a 50-
percent likelihood of storing their manuals and amendments in
electronic format at marine transfer areas, and MTR facilities have a
20-percent likelihood of storing them electronically.
The reason these percentages are low is because the adoption of
electronic documents at these areas requires a facility to already be
equipped to access electronic documentation at marine transfer
areas.\92\ The cost of purchasing the new IT equipment for these
purposes greatly offsets the cost savings from using electronic
documentation, as facilities must have the necessary IT infrastructure
in place to experience the cost savings. As LNG/LHG facilities are
typically more capital-intensive and modernized in terms of IT
infrastructure than MTR facilities, they are more likely to use
electronic documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ For example, through Wi-Fi or hardwire connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated previously, the costs to assemble manuals and amendments
for LNG/LHG facilities was $9.50 and $1.69 (each).\93\ Additionally, we
have estimated the affected population for LNG/LHG facilities at 18 for
manuals and 42 for amendments.\94\ Multiplying these numbers with an
average of two marine transfer areas per facility resulted in the
annual production cost savings figures shown in table 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See tables 5 and 6 and the discussions accompanying them.
\94\ See discussion under the ``Affected Population'' section of
this RA.
Table 14--Annual LNG/LHG Facility Production Cost Savings for Marine Transfer Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Instances of document use Marine Annual
Marine transfer area cost documents per at marine transfer areas Production production
savings: year transfer areas per facility costs (each) costs savings
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................... 18 50 2 $9.50 $171.00
Amendments...................... 42 50 2 1.69 70.98
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 241.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated previously, we estimated the costs to assemble manuals
and amendments, for MTR facilities, at $16.21 and $2.42 (each).\95\ We
have also estimated the affected population at 261 manuals and 442
amendments for MTR facilities.\96\ Multiplying these numbers with an
average of two marine transfer areas per facility resulted in the
annual production cost savings figures shown in table 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See tables 7 and 8 and the discussions accompanying them.
\96\ See discussion under the ``Affected Population'' section of
this RA.
Table 15--Annual MTR Facility Production Cost Savings for Marine Transfer Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Instances of document use Marine Annual
Marine transfer area cost documents per at marine transfer areas Production production
savings: year transfer areas per facility costs (each) costs savings
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................... 261 20 2 $16.21 $1,692.32
Amendments...................... 442 20 2 2.42 427.86
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2,120.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings From Placing Electronic Versions of Operations Manuals at
Marine Transfer Areas
In tables 16 and 17, we show the labor cost savings to facilities
that choose to retain electronic documents instead of printed documents
at marine transfer areas. According to Coast Guard SMEs, normally a PIC
(or someone with a similar background) would place the printed copies
at a facility's marine transfer areas. Coast Guard SMEs estimated that
it takes an hour to perform this function, due to the size of the
facilities. The occupation best corresponding to the role of a PIC in
the BLS occupational code series is ``First Line Supervisors of
Production and Operating Workers'' (Occupational Code 51-1011), under
NAICS 325000 (Chemical Manufacturing).\97\ We found the mean wage for
this occupation to be $36.07.\98\ We estimated the loaded wage rate to
be $54.47.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ There is no comparable BLS occupational code 51-1011 under
the BLS's NAICS 483000 (Water Transportation).
\98\ May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates, NAICS 325000, (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/May/naics3_325000.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/May/naics3_325000.htm</a>), downloaded April 16, 2021.
\99\ We estimated the loaded rate by accessing the latest
available Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation News Release (USDL-21-0437), March 18, 2021 (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf</a>), referenced April 18, 2021,
table 5, page 9. According to this document, for the ``production,
transportation and material moving'' industry, benefits were $10.92
per hour while wages were $21.36 (for a ratio of benefits to wages
of 51 percent). $36.07 + ($36.07 x 0.51 = $18.40) = $54.47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the estimated loaded labor rate of $54.47 per hour,
multiplied by the affected populations discussed
[[Page 43933]]
previously under the ``Affected Population'' portion of this RA (18
manuals for LNG/LHG facilities and 261 for MTR facilities; 42
amendments for LNG/LHG facilities and 442 for MTR facilities) and the
estimated rate of electronic document use at marine transfer areas
discussed previously (50 percent at LNG/LHG facilities and 20 percent
at MTR facilities), we derived the annual labor cost savings shown in
tables 16 and 17.
Table 16--Annual LNG/LHG Facility Labor Cost Savings With Respect to Electronic and Operations Manuals (and
Amendments) That Will Not Have To Be Placed at Marine Transfer Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Instances of document use Total annual
Labor of storing manuals and amendments documents per at marine Labor costs labor cost
year transfer areas savings
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................................... 18 50 54.47 $490.23
Amendments...................................... 42 50 54.47 1,143.87
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 1,634.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17--Annual MTR Facility Labor Cost Savings With Respect to Operations Manuals (and Amendments) That Will
Not Have To Be Placed at Marine Transfer Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Instances of document use Total annual
Labor of storing manuals and amendments documents per at marine Labor costs labor cost
year transfer areas savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................................... 261 20 54.47 $2,843.33
Amendments...................................... 442 20 54.47 4,815.15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 7,658.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 18 and 19 show the total annual cost savings for LNG/LHG and
MTR facilities in both nominal and discounted terms. We found these
savings estimates by summing the previous tables for the total number
of facilities by respective facility type.
Table 18--Annual Cost Savings for LNG/LHG Facilities on a Nominal Basis
and Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal terms 7% discounted
LNG/LHG cost savings \1\ rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $3,465.19 $3,238.50
Year 2.............................. 3,465.19 3,026.63
Year 3.............................. 3,465.19 2,828.63
Year 4.............................. 3,465.19 2,643.58
Year 5.............................. 3,465.19 2,470.63
Year 6.............................. 3,465.19 2,309.00
Year 7.............................. 3,465.19 2,157.95
Year 8.............................. 3,465.19 2,016.77
Year 9.............................. 3,465.19 1,884.83
Year 10............................. 3,465.19 1,761.53
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 34,651.90 24,338.04
Annualized...................... ................ 3,465.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sum of tables 16 ($1,634.10), table 14 ($241.98), table 12
($1,010.59) and table 10 ($578.52) equals $3,465.19.
Table 19--Annual Cost Savings for MTR Facilities on a Nominal Basis and
Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal terms 7% discounted
MTR cost savings \1\ rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $35,929.02 $33,578.53
Year 2.............................. 35,929.02 31,381.80
Year 3.............................. 35,929.02 29,328.78
Year 4.............................. 35,929.02 27,410.08
Year 5.............................. 35,929.02 25,616.90
Year 6.............................. 35,929.02 23,941.02
Year 7.............................. 35,929.02 22,374.79
Year 8.............................. 35,929.02 20,911.02
Year 9.............................. 35,929.02 19,543.01
Year 10............................. 35,929.02 18,264.49
-----------------------------------
[[Page 43934]]
Total........................... 359,290.22 252,350.42
Annualized...................... ................ 35,929.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sum of tables 17 ($7,658.48), table 15 ($2,120.18), table 13
($14,311.83) and table 11 ($11,838.53) equals $35,929.02.
Table 20 shows the total private sector cost savings.
Table 20--Total Private Sector Cost Savings on a Nominal Basis and
Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discounted
Total private sector cost savings Nominal terms rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $39,394.21 $36,817.02
Year 2.............................. 39,394.21 34,408.43
Year 3.............................. 39,394.21 32,157.41
Year 4.............................. 39,394.21 30,053.66
Year 5.............................. 39,394.21 28,087.53
Year 6.............................. 39,394.21 26,250.03
Year 7.............................. 39,394.21 24,532.74
Year 8.............................. 39,394.21 22,927.79
Year 9.............................. 39,394.21 21,427.84
Year 10............................. 39,394.21 20,026.02
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 393,942.12 276,688.46
Annualized...................... ................ 39,394.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Cost Savings
Under current regulations, the COTP examines the Operations
Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and amendments that are submitted by LNG
and LHG facilities, and the Operations Manuals and amendments that are
submitted by MTR facilities. After examining LNG and LHG documentation,
the COTP finds the document either adequate or inadequate. If the
document is found adequate, the current regulation requires that ``the
Captain of the Port returns one copy to the [facility] owner or
operator marked `Examined by the Coast Guard'.'' \100\ The same applies
to MTR facility documentation. If the document is found to be adequate,
the current regulation requires that ``the COTP . . . return one copy
of the manual marked `Examined by the Coast Guard'.'' \101\ All these
copies are currently submitted to the COTP by facilities in the form of
two printed copies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 33 CFR 127.019(c).
\101\ 33 CFR 154.300(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings From the Option for the COTP To Return Electronic
Documents to Facility Operators if Those Documents Were Electronically
Submitted
The COTP will return a notification explaining why a given manual
does not meet the requirements of the part and any suggested
corrections needed to the facilities in either electronic or printed
format, depending on the format in which the document was
received.\102\ In rare cases when there are extensive suggested edits,
the COTP may choose to send back a copy of the manual with the
corrections noted. If a document was received from a facility in
printed format, then it likely will not be returned to the facility in
electronic format. As previously stated, Coast Guard SMEs estimated
that 90 percent of LNG/LHG facility documents will be received in
electronic format, and 75 percent of MTR facility documents will be. We
estimated that this is the same percentage the COTP will return to the
facilities in electronic format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ The regulatory text in title 33 of the CFR (127.019(e),
154.320(c)(2), and 154.325(d) through (e)) states that the COTP will
notify the facility with an explanation of why it does not meet this
part. The form of the notification will depend on the complexity
and/or of the inadequacies that need to be addressed. If there are
many that need to be addressed it may prove more logical to return a
marked copy of the manual to the facility owner or operator. Some
types of inadequacies, for example diagrams, illustrations, and/or
maps that may need to be modified may also prove easier to
communicate with a manual that is marked, as opposed to a
notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost savings the Coast Guard will experience from returning
electronic responses will be the shipping and handling costs saved by
not having to mail back the printed editions of the Operations Manuals,
Emergency Manuals, and amendments. The Coast Guard, like the private
sector, will likely use a mailing service such as UPS or FedEx Ground
shipping. Since the same packages will be returned to the facilities,
the Coast Guard's mailing costs will likely be the same as the private
sector's. For a 0.5-inch manual, this is estimated to total $9.25, and
for a 5-page amendment, this is estimated to total $8.23.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Source: Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because labor costs differ between the Coast Guard and the private
sector, labor-handling costs do also. The Coast Guard personnel
expected to package documents to return to facilities will be either E-
4s or E-5s. According to the latest available Commandant Instruction,
the fully loaded hourly rate for an E-4 is $45.00, and for an E-5
$54.00.\104\ We assumed that it takes the Coast Guard the same amount
of time to pack and prepare a 0.5-inch manual and a 5-page amendment
for shipping as it takes the private sector: 5 Minutes, rounded to the
closest whole minute, for a 0.5-inch manual, and 4 minutes for a 5-page
amendment.<SUP>105 106</SUP> We estimated labor costs at $3.60 for an
E-4 and $4.32
[[Page 43935]]
for an E-5 to mail a 0.5-inch manual.\107\ We estimated that it costs
$3.15 for an E-4 and $3.78 for an E-5 to mail a 5-page amendment.\108\
We took an average of the E-4 and E-5 rates, thus deriving an estimated
labor cost of $3.96 per 0.5-inch manual and $3.47 per 5-page
amendment.\109\ Thus, the average total cost to mail a 0.5-inch manual
is $13.21, and to mail a 5-page amendment is $11.70. These costs are
summarized in table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Commandant Instruction 7310.1U, dated 27 February 2020,
page 2 under the ``Hourly Standard Rates for Personnel'' section,
<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2020/Mar/04/2002258826/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1U.PDF">https://media.defense.gov/2020/Mar/04/2002258826/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1U.PDF</a>. As of April 19, 2021, this was the latest edition of
this document available.
\105\ 5 divided by 60 equals 0.08 hours.
\106\ 4 divided by 60 equals 0.07 hours.
\107\ 0.08 multiplied by $45 equals $3.60 and 0.08 multiplied by
$54 equals $4.32.
\108\ 0.07 multiplied by $45 equals $3.15 and 0.07 multiplied by
$54 equals $3.78.
\109\ Both of these figures are rounded to the nearest whole
cent.
Table 21--Coast Guard Shipping and Handling Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping and handling costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handling
Mailing costs (labor costs) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................................................... $9.25 $3.96 $13.21
Amendments...................................................... 8.23 3.47 11.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the documents that have been found adequate, there
is the issue of those documents that are deemed inadequate by the COTP.
The current regulations require the COTP to notify the facility in
writing.\110\ This notification usually comes in the form of a marked-
up copy of the document, showing what needs to be corrected. This final
rule provides the COTP the option to respond electronically or in print
to either electronic or printed copies from the facility operators. The
COTP will not be obligated to respond in the same format that the
manual is submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ 33 CFR 154.320(a)(1) states, ``The COTP will notify the
facility operator [of an MTR facility] in writing of any
inadequacies.'' 33 CFR 127.019(d) states, ``If the COTP finds that
the Operations Manual or the Emergency Manual does not meet this
part, the Captain of the Port will return the manual with an
explanation of why it does not meet this part [to the LNG or LHG
facility].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the cost savings for the Coast Guard will arise from
the reduced number of printed Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals,
and amendments returned to LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities. These savings
can be broken out into the labor costs and the shipping costs. Table 22
shows these annual cost saving calculations.
Table 22--Coast Guard Annual Cost Savings From Shipping and Handling Costs Foregone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected rate
Instances of of electronic Shipping and Annual cost
Cost savings to the coast guard documents per documents handling costs savings
year \1\ production (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG Manuals Submitted....................... 18 90 $13.21 $214.00
LNG/LHG Amendments Submitted.................... 42 90 11.70 442.26
MTR Manuals Submitted........................... 261 75 13.21 2,585.86
MTR Amendments Submitted........................ 442 75 11.70 3,878.55
LNG/LHG Manuals Found Inadequate................ 18 \2\ 27 13.21 64.20
LNG/LHG Amendments Found Inadequate............. 42 \3\ 14 11.70 68.80
MTR Manuals Found Inadequate.................... 261 \4\ 23 13.21 793.00
MTR Amendments Found Inadequate................. 442 \5\ 11 11.70 568.85
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 8,615.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See tables 12 and 13.
\2\ 90% (percentage of LNG/LHG manuals sent electronically) times 30% (percentage of LNG/LHG manuals found
inadequate) equals 27%.
\3\ 90% (percentage of LNG/LHG amendments sent electronically) times 15% (percentage of LNG/LHG amendments found
inadequate) equals 14%.
\4\ 75% (percentage of MTR manuals sent electronically) times 30% (percentage of MTR manuals found inadequate)
equals 23%.
\5\ 75% (percentage of MTR amendments sent electronically) times 15% (percentage of MTR amendments found
inadequate) equals 11%.
The summary of these calculations for 10 years is provided in table
23.
Table 23--Coast Guard Costs Savings on a Nominal Basis and Discounted at
7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discounted
Coast guard cost savings Nominal terms rate \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $8,615.52 $8,051.89
Year 2.............................. 8,615.52 7,525.13
Year 3.............................. 8,615.52 7,032.83
Year 4.............................. 8,615.52 6,572.74
Year 5.............................. 8,615.52 6,142.75
Year 6.............................. 8,615.52 5,740.88
Year 7.............................. 8,615.52 5,365.31
Year 8.............................. 8,615.52 5,014.31
[[Page 43936]]
Year 9.............................. 8,615.52 4,686.27
Year 10............................. 8,615.52 4,379.69
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 86,155.20 60,511.81
Annualized...................... ................ 8,615.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2020 dollar terms.
Summary of Cost Savings
We show the total cost savings, for both the private sector and
government, in nominal and discounted terms, in table 24.
Table 24--Total Cost Savings (Private Sector Plus Government) on a
Nominal Basis and Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total private sector + coast guard 7% Discounted
cost savings Nominal terms rate \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $48,009.73 $44,868.91
Year 2.............................. 48,009.73 41,933.56
Year 3.............................. 48,009.73 39,190.24
Year 4.............................. 48,009.73 36,626.39
Year 5.............................. 48,009.73 34,230.28
Year 6.............................. 48,009.73 31,990.91
Year 7.............................. 48,009.73 29,898.05
Year 8.............................. 48,009.73 27,942.10
Year 9.............................. 48,009.73 26,114.11
Year 10............................. 48,009.73 24,405.71
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 480,097.32 337,200.27
Annualized...................... ................ 48,009.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2020 dollar terms.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered whether
this final rule will 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 will allow MTR facilities and LNG and LHG
facilities to submit their Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and
amendments in electronic format. These facilities will experience a
cost savings. We estimate that this final rule will provide cost
savings to 703 MTR facilities, and 60 LNG and LHG facilities.
This final rule will reduce the time and cost burden for regulated
LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities to submit Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments for the purposes of 33 CFR parts 127, 154, and
156. The final rule enables these facilities to submit the required
documentation electronically, enabling facilities to save time
associated with mailing and processing printed manuals. In addition, it
permits facilities to place electronic copies of their manuals and
amendments at their marine transfer areas, resulting in a savings to
facilities that choose this route because they will not have to print
manuals and amendments and place them physically at those locations.
We examined the LNG/LHG and MTR facility populations separately to
provide a detailed analysis. With respect to the LNG/LHG population, we
estimate that 54 facilities a year will be impacted by the final rule,
or 45 percent of the 121 total number of LNG and LHG facilities.\111\ A
search of the MISLE database revealed a total of 85 unique owners for
these 121 LNG and LHG facilities.\112\ Of these unique owners, 15 were
found to be small businesses, as defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) ``Table of Small Size Standards.'' \113\ We were
unable to find employee or revenue information for 16 entities.
Entities for which data was not available were assumed to be small
entities. Assuming that the proportion of owners is directly related to
the number of impacted owners, taking 45 percent of the 85 unique
owners yields a total of 38 unique owners who will be affected by the
final rule.\114\ We estimate total nominal cost savings per year for
LNG/LHG facilities to be $3,465 per year, as shown in table 18.\115\
This totals $91.18 per owner per year.\116\ There were no small LNG/LHG
facilities for which gross sales data existed for which costs savings
exceeded 1 percent of gross revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Of the 60 LNG/LHG facilities, we assume 54 will submit
their documentation in electronic format and 6 in print. Of the 703
MTR facilities, 527 are expected to submit their documents in
electronic format and 176 in print. See the discussion under the
``Affected Population'' section of this RA. 54 divided by 121 equals
45 percent.
\112\ We conducted this search of the MISLE database in mid-
December 2020.
\113\ As of the latest available SBA ``Table of Size Standards''
at the time we performed this analysis. That table was effective as
of Aug. 19, 2019 and is available at <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>.
\114\ Rounded to nearest whole number. 85 multiplied by 45
percent equals 38.25 (rounded to 38).
\115\ From table 18, rounded to closest whole dollar.
\116\ $3,465 divided by 38 equals $91.18 per impacted owner per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the MTR facility population, we estimate that 527
[[Page 43937]]
facilities will be impacted per year.\117\ As we found the total number
of MTR facilities to be 2,497, the proportion of impacted facilities is
21 percent.\118\ Our search of the MISLE database found 1,390 unique
owners of all MTR facilities.\119\ We reduced the 1,390 to a
representative sample.\120\ Applying this formula, while assuming a 95-
percent confidence interval, yielded a sample size of 385. We base our
small business analysis on this sample size.\121\ Of the 385
facilities, we estimate that 276 should be considered small. Of those
276 facilities, 145 were small (in terms of either gross sales or
number of employees) according to the definition provided by the SBA.
Sales and employee data was not available for the remaining 131
facilities, so we assumed that these facilities were also small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See the discussion under the ``Affected Population''
section of this RA.
\118\ Rounded to closest whole percentage point (527 divided by
2,497 equals 21.1 percent). This assumes that this ratio, based on
historical MISLE data over the past 10 years, remains constant over
the future.
\119\ We conducted this search of the MISLE database in Mid-
December 2020.
\120\ We used two equations and then took the higher value, as
derived from them, rounded up to the nearest whole number. The two
equations are as follows: [Z\2\*p*q]/(e\2\) and (N/[1+(N*(e\2\))].
Each term in these equations is defined as follows: Z=1.96, e=0.05,
p=0.5, q=0.5, N = X, the relevant number of observations. The
application of the two equations yields the following numbers:
[(1.96\2\)*0.5*0.5]/(0.05\2\) = 310.6 (rounded to 311) and 1,390/
[1+(1,390*(0.05\2\)] = 384.16 (rounded to 385). As 385 is the higher
number we select it as our relevant sample size.
\121\ We picked the 385 from the 1,390 by assigning the 1,390 a
randomly selected number between 0 and 1 using the random number
generator in Excel and then picking the first 385 facilities, from
highest to lowest, based on the number the random number generator
created for each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the total number of impacted unique MTR facility
operators at 292.\122\ We estimate the total cost savings, as shown in
table 19, to be $35,929 per year for all MTR facilities per year.\123\
Hence, we estimate that the projected cost savings per impacted
facility will be $123.05 per year.\124\ Assuming that the proportion of
small facilities among the 292 total impacted facilities reflects the
ratio of small facilities in the sample derived by the application of
the sample size estimated (72 percent), we estimate a total population
of 210 small facilities.\125\ For the 145 small MTR facilities for
which gross sales data existed, there were no facilities for which
costs savings exceeded 1 percent of gross revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 1,390 multiplied by 21 percent equals 291.9.
\123\ From table 19, rounded to closest whole dollar.
\124\ $35,929 divided by 292 equals $123.05.
\125\ 276 divided by 385 equals 71.7 percent. 292 multiplied by
72 percent equals 210.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided above, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. 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 final rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this final rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
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).
D. Collection of Information
This final rule calls for a revision to two collections of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information''
comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and
other similar actions. The title and description of the collections of
information, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.
This final rule changes the collections of information required for
waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG, described in OMB Control
Number 1625-0049, and facilities transferring oil or hazardous
materials in bulk, described in OMB Control Number 1625-0093. This
final rule does not change the content of responses, nor the estimated
burden of each response, but decreases the total annual burden for both
of these collections of information. The Coast Guard will submit this
collection of information amendments to OMB for its review.
Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG).
OMB Control Number: 1625-0049.
Summary of the Collection of Information: LNG and LHG present a
risk to the public when transferred at waterfront facilities. Title 33
CFR part 127 prescribes safety standards for the design, construction,
equipment, operations, maintenance, personnel training, and fire
protection at waterfront facilities handling LNG or LHG. The facility
operators must submit Operational Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and
amendments to the Coast Guard.
Need for Information: The information in an Operations Manual is
used by the Coast Guard to ensure the facility follows proper and safe
procedures for handling LNG and LHG and to ensure facility personnel
are trained and follow proper and safe procedures for transfer
operations. The Emergency Manual is used by the Coast Guard to ensure
the facility follows proper procedures in the event of an emergency
during transfer operations. These procedures include actions in the
event of a release, fire, or other event that requires an emergency
shutdown, first aid, or emergency mooring or unmooring of a vessel.
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals are updated periodically by
amendments to ensure they are kept current to reflect changes in
procedures, equipment, personnel, and telephone number listings.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information to
monitor compliance with the rule.
Description of the Respondents: Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG
and LHG.
Number of Respondents: This final rule will not have any impact on
the number of respondents. Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE database,
there are currently 121 LNG and LHG facilities operating in the United
States and its territories.\126\ The final rule will reduce the number
of hours spent assembling manuals and amendments, submitting them to
the COTP, updating numerous copies of each manual that is amended, and
ensuring that the most recent version of the manual with all amendments
is available to the PIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ In the most current collection of information, the number
of LNG and LNG facilities was 108. The current figure of 121
reflects an increase in this population; it is not due to a change
made by the final rule. The relevant collection of information,
1625-0049, can be found in Regulations.Gov (<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353">https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43938]]
Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year for this
final rule will vary by participating facilities. The Coast Guard
anticipates that each new participant will submit an Operations Manual
and Emergency Manual once when the new facility becomes operational.
The operator will submit updates, in the form of amendments, to the
manual whenever there is a significant change.
The final rule does not increase the number of annual responses.
The number of responses since the last collection of information,
however, has increased, because the population size since that time has
increased. The most recently approved collection of information
estimates 3,356 annual responses for all LNG and LHG facilities.\127\
Under the final rule, the annual responses are estimated to be
3,502.\128\ This difference is due to a change in the populations as
opposed to other impacts of the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Annual responses are defined as not only the number of
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments but also
other documentation such as letters of intent and declarations of
intent. The full list of documents that constitute responses can be
found in the collection if information (1625-0049).
\128\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden of Response: The burden of response will decrease due to the
fact that facility operators will no longer need to print the manuals
that will be submitted, mail them to the COTP, and place them at the
marine transfer areas of the facilities (for those manuals and
amendments that will be kept at marine transfer areas in electronic
format).
In the latest available collection of information, using the new
LNG and LHG population of 121 instead of 108, along with the per-
response burden hours in that collection, the total burden hours for
both LNG and LHG facilities, per year, is 6,768. The hours per response
for the development of an Operations Manual or Emergency Manual is 150
hours, and the hours per response for Operations Manual or Emergency
Manual amendments is 2 hours.\129\ The final rule will reduce the
burden hours for Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and
amendments for facility operators submitting their documents to the
COTP and storing their documentation at their marine transfer areas in
electronic format. This total time saved time is estimated at 33 hours
per year. Thus, the Coast Guard estimates that 33 burden hours will be
eliminated per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The relevant collection of information is 1625-0049. The
150- and 2-hour figures can be seen in Regulations.Gov (specifically
under <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353">https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353</a>), in the
supporting document ``1625-0049_SS_r0_2019_calcs-sheet_App-A-to-C'',
pages 2-3. In that document, it can be seen that the total hours per
response, for both LNG and LHG facilities, is 150 hours for
development of Operations Manuals and Emergency Manual Amendments
and 2 hours for Operations Manual and Emergency Manual amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The final rule will decrease the
total burden by 33 hours, from 6,768 hours to 6,735.
Title: Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk.
OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.
Summary of the Collection of Information: The Operations Manual
regulations in 33 CFR 154.300 through 154.325 establish procedures for
facilities that transfer oil or hazardous materials, in bulk, to or
from a vessel with a capacity of 39.75 cubic meters (250 barrels) or
more. The facility operator must submit Operations Manuals and
associated amendments to the Coast Guard.
Need for Information: The Coast Guard uses the information in an
Operations Manual to ensure that facility personnel follow proper and
safe procedures for transferring oil or hazardous materials and to
ensure facility personnel follow proper and safe procedures for dealing
with any spills that occur during a transfer. Operations Manuals are
updated periodically by amendments to ensure they are kept current to
reflect changes in procedures, equipment, personnel, and telephone
number listings.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information to
monitor compliance with the rule.
Description of the Respondents: Facilities transferring oil or
hazardous materials in bulk.
Number of Respondents: This final rule will not have any impact on
the number of respondents. Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE database,
there are currently 2,497 oil and hazardous material facilities
operating in the United States and its territories. The electronic
submission opportunity in this final rule will reduce the number of
hours spent printing the manuals and amendments, submitting them to the
COTP, updating numerous copies of each manual following amendment, and
ensuring the most recent printed version of the manual, with all
amendments, is available to the PIC.
Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year for this
final rule will vary by participating facilities. The Coast Guard
anticipates that each new participant will submit an Operations Manual
once when the new facility becomes operational. The operator will
submit updates to the manual whenever there is a significant change.
Based on historical information, the Coast Guard expects facilities to
submit 261 new Operations Manuals and 442 amendments per year. The
number of Letters of Intent submissions is 261, equivalent to the
number of Operations Manuals. The current collection of information
assumes that the number of Letters of Intent equals the number of
Operations Manual submissions. These figures are derived from the MISLE
database. Hence, the total number of responses is 964 per year.
Burden of Response: The final rule gives regulated facilities the
option of submitting Operations Manuals and associated amendments to
the COTP, at their discretion, in either print or electronic format.
For those facilities submitting documentation in electronic format, the
burden of response will decrease due to eliminating the need to print
and mail these manuals. For facility operators placing electronic
copies of their documents at their marine transfer areas, costs
associated with printing copies and labor time related to placing them
there will be saved.
According to the latest collection of information, 115 hours are
required to prepare an Operations Manual; 16 hours are required to
prepare an amendment; and 2 hours are required to submit a Letter of
Intent.\130\ Assuming that there are 261 Operations Manual submissions,
442 amendment submissions, and 261 Letters of Intent, the total of
annual burden hours in that collection of information is 37,609.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.
\131\ The existing collection of information states that the
Letters of Intent submissions equal the number of Operation Manual
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule will reduce the burden hours for facilities because
it will permit them to submit their documentation in electronic format
and permit them to store their documents at their marine transfer areas
in electronic format. The estimated burden hours reduced as a result is
249 hours per year.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The final rule will decrease the
total burden hours by 249, from 37,609 hours to 37,360 per year.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we submitted a copy of the
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the reduction in the total
annual burden for OMB Control Number 1625-0049. The Coast Guard did not
receive any comments on the proposed rule regarding either collection
of information request; accordingly no changes have been made. We will
submit a copy of the published final rule to OMB for their
[[Page 43939]]
review and approval of the changes to both existing collections of
information. You are not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 Executive Order 13132 and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis follows.
This final rule amends the Operations Manual and Emergency Manual
submission procedures and COTP approval process for facilities that
transfer LNG, LHG, oil, or hazardous material, in bulk, to or from a
vessel. These changes involve procedural requirements for the Coast
Guard's own approval process, safety risk analysis, and appeal process
for a facility that transfers LNG, LHG, oil, or hazardous material in
bulk. The changes in this final rule do not conflict with State
interests. For individual States, or their political subdivisions, any
requirements for facilities to submit their Operations Manuals or
Emergency Manuals to them for review or approval will be unaffected by
this rule.
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(1), Congress has expressly
authorized the Coast Guard to establish ``procedures, measures and
standards for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage and
movement on a structure of explosives or other dangerous articles and
substances, including oil or hazardous material.'' The Coast Guard
affirmatively preempts any State rules related to these procedures,
measures, and standards (See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109-
110 (2000)). Therefore, because the States may not regulate within
these categories, this rule is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132.
F. Unfunded Mandates
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 million (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This final 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.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments),
because it will 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.
K. 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.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
will be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example,
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 final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a 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. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
This rule is categorically excluded under paragraphs A3 (part d)
and L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. Paragraph A3 (part d) pertains to the promulgation of rules,
issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and
publication of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures that
interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its
environmental effect, and paragraph L54 pertains to regulations which
are editorial or procedural. This rule allows facilities that transfer
oil, hazardous materials, LNG, or LHG in bulk to submit and maintain
the facility Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals electronically or
in print, and amends the COTP examination procedures for those
documents, thus enabling electronic communication between the facility
operators and the Coast Guard, which will reduce the time and cost
associated with mailing printed manuals. This action is consistent with
the Coast Guard's port and waterway security and marine safety
missions.
[[Page 43940]]
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 127
Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Natural gas,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
33 CFR Part 154
Alaska, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
33 CFR Part 156
Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 127, 154, and 156 as follows:
PART 127--WATERFRONT FACILITIES HANDLING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS AND
LIQUEFIED HAZARDOUS GAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 127 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
0
2. Revise Sec. 127.019 to read as follows:
Sec. 127.019 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Procedures for
examination.
(a) The owner or operator of an active facility must submit an
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual in printed or electronic format
to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
(b) At least 30 days before transferring LHG or LNG, the owner or
operator of a new or an inactive facility must submit an Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual in printed or electronic format to the
Captain of the Port of the zone in which the facility is located,
unless the manuals have been examined and there have been no changes
since that examination.
(c) Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals submitted after
September 10, 2021 must include a date, revision date or other
revision-specific identifying information.
(d) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual meets Sec.
127.305 or Sec. 127.1305 and that the Emergency Manual meets Sec.
127.307 or Sec. 127.1307, the COTP will provide notice to the facility
stating each manual has been examined by the Coast Guard. This notice
will include the revision date of the manual or other revision-specific
identifying information.
(e) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual or the Emergency
Manual does not meet this part, the COTP will notify the facility with
an explanation of why it does not meet this part.
0
3. In Sec. 127.309, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.
The operator must ensure that--
(a) LNG transfer operations are not conducted unless the person in
charge of transfer for the waterfront facility handling LNG has in the
marine transfer area a readily available printed or electronic copy of
the most recently examined Operations Manual and Emergency Manual.
Electronic devices used to display the manuals must comply with
applicable electrical safety standards in this part;
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 127.1309, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.1309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.
The operator must ensure that--
(a) LHG transfer operations are not conducted unless the person in
charge of transfer for the waterfront facility handling LHG has a
printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual readily available in the marine transfer
area. Electronic devices used to display the manuals must comply with
applicable electrical safety standards in this part;
* * * * *
PART 154--FACILITIES TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN BULK
0
5. The authority citation for part 154 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5), (j)(6), and (m)(2);
46 U.S.C. 70011, 70034; sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
Subpart F is also issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735. Vapor control
recovery provisions of Subpart P are also issued under 42 U.S.C.
7511b(f)(2).
0
6. Amend Sec. 154.300 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text and add paragraph (a)(4);
0
b. In paragraphs (b) and (c), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''; and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 154.300 Operations manual: General.
(a) The facility operator of each facility to which this part
applies must submit to the COTP of the zone(s) in which the facility
operates, with the letter of intent, an Operations Manual in printed or
electronic format that:
* * * * *
(4) After September 10, 2021, includes a date, revision date, or
other revision-specific id
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on August 11, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.