Rule2022-01888
Operational Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards
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
February 2, 2022
Effective
March 4, 2022
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard issues this final rule amending its regulations concerning waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The final rule makes the following three changes. First, the final rule revises the Coast Guard's existing regulations to allow waterfront facilities handling LNG as fuel to conduct an operational risk assessment instead of a waterway suitability assessment (WSA) without first obtaining Captain of the Port (COTP) approval. Second, the final rule revises existing regulations to update incorporated technical standards to reflect the most recent published editions. These updated industry standards only apply to waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG that are constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after the implementation date of the final rule. Third, for waterfront facilities handling LNG that must comply with the WSA requirements, the final rule requires these facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard regarding the nation of registry for vessels transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the facilities, and the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board those vessels.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5660-5692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01888]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 127
[Docket No. USCG-2019-0444]
RIN 1625-AC52
Operational Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling
Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard issues this final rule amending its
regulations concerning waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural
gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The final rule makes the
following three changes. First, the final rule revises the Coast
Guard's existing regulations to allow waterfront facilities handling
LNG as fuel to conduct an operational risk assessment instead of a
waterway suitability assessment (WSA) without first obtaining Captain
of the Port (COTP) approval. Second, the final rule revises existing
regulations to update incorporated technical standards to reflect the
most recent published editions. These updated industry standards only
apply to waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG that are
constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after the
implementation date of the final rule. Third, for waterfront facilities
handling LNG that must comply with the WSA requirements, the final rule
requires these facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard
regarding the nation of registry for vessels transporting natural gas
that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the facilities, and the
nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board those
vessels.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 4, 2022. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on March 4, 2022.
ADDRESSES: To view 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-
2019-0444 in the search box and click
[[Page 5661]]
``Search.'' Next, in the Document Type column, select ``Supporting &
Related Material.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager, Coast Guard, Vessel and
Facility Operating Standards Division, Commandant (CG-OES-2); telephone
202-372-1413, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377c5259197619645a5e435f7742445450195a5e5b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d765853137c136e505449557d484e5e5a13505451">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary
III. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Discussion of the Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. 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 and Incorporation by Reference
M. Environment
I. Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM ASTM International
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-OES Coast Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards
COI Collection of information
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DNV Det Norske Veritas
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FR Federal Register
GSA General Services Administration
HAZID Hazard Identification
IA Interagency Agreement
IBR Incorporated by reference
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LHG Liquefied hazardous gas
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LOI Letter of Intent
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OFR Office of the Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORA Operational risk assessment
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
SBA Small Business Administration
SME Subject Matter Expert
SNPRM Supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WSA Waterway suitability assessment
II. Executive Summary
The purpose of this final rule is to amend the regulations in Title
33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 127 concerning
waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) \1\ and
liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The final rule makes three changes: (1)
Changes the risk assessment requirements for facilities that only
handle LNG as fuel and do not transfer LNG as cargo to or from a
vessel; (2) updates the technical standards already incorporated by
reference in part 127; and (3) adds a requirement that LNG import/
export facilities provide certain information to satisfy a statutory
requirement. We discuss each change below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purpose of simplification, in this final rule we
refer to a waterfront facility handling LNG as an ``LNG import/
export facility'' to distinguish it from an LNG fuel facility. This
term is used for convenience and does not appear in the regulatory
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the final rule adds new Sec. 127.008 to allow waterfront
facilities handling LNG as fuel (LNG fuel facilities <SUP>2 3</SUP>) to
conduct an operational risk assessment (ORA) instead of a waterway
suitability assessment (WSA), without first obtaining Captain of the
Port (COTP) approval. An ORA focuses on the safety and security
associated with shore-based operations within the marine transfer area,
whereas a WSA focuses on the risks and vulnerabilities of the waterway
associated with an LNG import/export facility. LNG fuel facilities, as
defined, do not transfer LNG as cargo to or from a vessel and so an
assessment of the waterway is unnecessary. The final rule reduces the
regulatory burden on LNG fuel facilities by reducing the scope of the
analysis and the amount of information facility owners would have to
submit to the Coast Guard. Reducing the regulatory burden could
increase the maritime industry's level of interest in converting or
constructing vessels to use LNG as a marine fuel to comply with
stricter emissions standards and realize economic advantages.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This rule defines LNG fuel facility in Sec. 127.005 to mean
a waterfront facility that handles LNG for the sole purpose of
providing LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a
marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from
vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
\3\ LNG fuel facility does not include the transfer of LNG to a
vessel for delivery to other vessels for use as fuel. This type of
transfer operation is a transfer of LNG in bulk to a vessel capable
of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
\4\ See the report by the Congressional Research Service, titled
``LNG as a Maritime Fuel: Prospects and Policy'' (dated February 5,
2019) at <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45488.pdf">https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45488.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the final rule updates the technical standards already
incorporated by reference in part 127 to reflect the most recent
published editions of these standards. We have determined that
modified, expanded, and new LNG fuel facilities, LNG import/export
facilities, and waterfront facilities handling LHG are built to the
most recent industry standards available at the time of modification,
expansion, or construction, and not the outdated standards currently
codified in 33 CFR part 127.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This determination was made by direct communication with
members of the LNG community through the Coast Guard's participation
on the technical committee for the National Fire Protection
Association 59A titled, ``Standard for the Production, Storage, and
Handling of LNG,'' which has approximately 50 members representing
various owners, operators, and designers of waterfront facilities
handling LNG and related LNG equipment suppliers, and through direct
contact with owners and operators intending to build or modify
waterfront facilities handling LNG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, for LNG import/export facilities that must comply with the
WSA requirements in Sec. 127.007, the final rule requires these
facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard at the time the
WSA is submitted. The required information is the nation of registry
for vessels transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to
be servicing the facilities, and the nationality or citizenship of
officers and crew serving on board those vessels. We are making this
change to assist us in meeting our obligation under Sec. 304(c)(2) of
the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.\6\ This
statute requires the Coast Guard, when operating as a contributing
agency in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shoreside
licensing process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to provide
this information to FERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Public Law 109-241, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
On October 5, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (FR) titled, ``Operational
Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural
Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards.'' \7\ The NPRM included
a 60-day comment period. No public meetings were requested, and none
were held. During the comment period for the NPRM, the
[[Page 5662]]
Coast Guard received five comment submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 85 FR 62651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 700 of title 46 United States Code (U.S.C.), Ports and
Waterways Safety, authorizes the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating to take certain actions to advance port,
harbor, and coastal facility safety and security. Specifically,
Sections 70011 and 70034 authorize the Secretary to promulgate
regulations for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage, and
movement of hazardous materials on a structure on or along U.S.
navigable waters as necessary to protect the vessel, structure, water,
or shore area. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the
Commandant of the Coast Guard in DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No.
01.2, paragraph (II)(70).
The purpose of this final rule is to reduce unnecessary
requirements for LNG fuel facilities; update technical standards that
apply to all facilities covered by part 127; and implement a statutory
requirement that LNG import/export facilities provide certain
information.
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received five comment submissions during the 60-day
comment period that ended on December 5, 2020. Four comment submissions
were received from members of the public and one joint submission was
submitted on behalf of two industry organizations. One commenter
pointed out that by the time the proposed rule became final, the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) would have adopted the 2020
edition of the NFPA 70 standard. In the NPRM, which was published on
October 5, 2020, we proposed to incorporate by reference the 2017
edition of NFPA 70. After reviewing this comment, we discovered that
the 2020 edition of NFPA 70 became effective on August 25, 2019. The
2020 edition features changes related to emergency disconnects, ground-
fault circuit interrupter protection, surge protection, and other
topics related to electrical safety. However, the provisions of the
2020 edition that would apply to regulated facilities through
Sec. Sec. 127.107(a) and (c), 127.201(c)(1), and 127.1107, remain
unchanged from the 2017 edition. In this final rule, we incorporate by
reference the 2020 edition of NFPA 70. Incorporating the most current
available edition of NFPA 70 will make it easier for regulated entities
to obtain the incorporated standard. Because this change does not alter
the regulatory requirements we proposed for public comment, no
additional notice or opportunity for public comment is necessary.
The same commenter informed us that the ASTM International (ASTM)
standard ASTM E119-20, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building
Construction and Materials, approved May 1, 2020 has superseded NFPA
251. This standard provides the fire-test-response criteria and
procedures for structural materials used in building construction. The
application of the test procedures contained in this standard are used
to evaluate the duration for which building construction materials and
assemblies can either contain a fire, retain structural integrity, or
both. In response to this comment, we will revise the regulatory text
in this final rule in Sec. 127.005 for the definition of the term
``fire endurance rating'' by deleting the reference to NFPA 251 and
replacing it with the reference to ASTM E119-20. This section refers to
a standard time temperature curve, which is the same in both NFPA 251
and ASTM E119-20. The NFPA provides notice on their website that it
withdrew NFPA 251 in the fall of 2010 \8\ and the material contained in
NFPA 251 is now found in ASTM E119-20 and UL 263. Because making this
change does not alter the regulatory requirements we proposed for
public comment, no additional notice or opportunity for public comment
is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building
Construction and Materials,'' <a href="https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=251">https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=251</a>. (Last visited Oct. 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter recommended that the best course of action for
the Coast Guard would be for owners and operators continue to meet with
the COTP before submitting an ORA to the Coast Guard. The commenter
said this would allow safety precautions to be taken into consideration
when establishing new LNG fuel facilities, while also reducing the
amount of work LNG facility owners and operators would have to do to
get the LNG fuel facility approved. The Coast Guard expects owners and
operators to continue meeting with the COTP, but has determined that
the preliminary requirement for LNG fuel facilities to obtain the
COTP's approval prior to beginning the ORA should be eliminated.
Interactions will take place throughout the development of the ORA,
because the Coast Guard is a key port stakeholder that must be
consulted during the risk assessment process. New Sec. 127.008(d)(1)
identifies the standards to be followed for conducting an ORA and each
of the standards contain provisions for either engaging with local
stakeholders or the authorities having jurisdiction over the proposed
LNG fuel facilities. Accordingly, the COTP will continue to work
closely with owners and operators to assess the risks associated with
their operation and determine whether the mitigation measures proposed
are suitable. This regulatory change only eliminates the preliminary
step, for certain facilities, of obtaining the COTP's approval to begin
the ORA.
One commenter made reference to the 2004 Interagency Agreement (IA)
titled, ``For the Safety and Security Review of Waterfront Import/
Export Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities'' (issued on February 10,
2004), established between the Coast Guard, FERC, and the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).\9\ The commenter
stated that by allowing owners or operators to conduct an ORA, instead
of a WSA, without first obtaining COTP approval appears to render the
terms of the IA moot. The IA remains in effect and applies only to LNG
import or export facilities, which must conduct a WSA, under Sec.
127.007. The LNG fuel facilities this regulatory action addresses in
Sec. 127.008 will not be importing or exporting LNG, but providing LNG
as fuel from shore-based structures to vessels. Accordingly, the IA
does not apply to the LNG fuel facilities affected by this aspect of
the final rule. Supplies of LNG will be delivered to an LNG fuel
facility from shore-based sources (for example, tank trucks, rail cars,
or pipelines), making waterway assessment unnecessary, because no
waterborne sources are used to supply LNG to the facility. LNG fuel
facilities, through the ORA process, will have to assess the overall
safety and security of the facilities just like LNG import or export
facilities do when conducting a WSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The IA agreement referenced by the commenter can be found at
<a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/2004-interagency.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/2004-interagency.pdf</a>. This website was accessed on October 26, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard received one joint comment submission on behalf of
two well-known oil and gas industry organizations, the Center for
Liquefied Natural Gas and the American Petroleum Institute. These
organizations voiced strong support for the proposed rule, noting that
the LNG industry has a strong safety record and long history of working
closely with regulators and first responders to maximize safety and
security of both large and small LNG facilities. The commenters said
that the use of an ORA instead of a WSA will benefit LNG fuel
facilities and integrate the benefits of risk-based principles over
[[Page 5663]]
the more prescriptive regulations and policies associated with
conducting a WSA. The commenters said, and the Coast Guard agrees, ``.
. . that allowing an ORA to be conducted instead of a WSA would benefit
waterfront facilities handling LNG as fuel. Allowing an ORA would
integrate the benefits of risk-based principles over the more
prescriptive regulations of a WSA. Utilizing a risk-based approach
(like the ORA) effectively manages safety by allowing examination and
devotion of resources on the areas of the system that pose the greatest
risk to process safety, mechanical integrity, and product quality
without compromising equipment care and personnel well-being.'' The
Coast Guard also believes the ORA focuses attention on critical areas
and establishes safety standards that all future LNG fuel facility
owners can follow, which helps ensure a consistent approach for
evaluating the safety and security concerns associated with each
individual project. In this manner, maritime safety and security may be
more effectively managed without unnecessary costs being imposed on the
industry.
One concern raised by these commenters involved the proposed
updates to the existing standards currently incorporated by reference
in 33 CFR part 127, noting that updating to newer editions could cause
conflict with standards that are incorporated by reference by other
government and state agencies that may share overlapping jurisdiction.
In this regard, the commenters indicated that it is vital that all
stakeholders, including the operators of LNG fuel facilities and
personnel of agencies having jurisdiction over the facilities, have a
clear understanding of which version of a standard is to be used and
how that standard will be interpreted and enforced. They agree that
updating existing regulations to incorporate technical standards to
reflect the most recent published editions is good practice and asked
that the Coast Guard attempt to ensure that standards are not in
conflict with other regulatory bodies having overlapping jurisdiction.
In this instance, the commenters noted that the 2001 and 2006 editions
of NFPA 59A that are incorporated by reference in PHMSA's regulations
(see 49 CFR 193.2013) reference different editions of ASME B31.3 and
NFPA 70 than the editions we intend to incorporate. However, the Coast
Guard does not believe this causes a conflict, because the regulations
of both the Coast Guard and PHMSA clearly define each agency's
jurisdictional boundaries. The Coast Guard has jurisdictional authority
over the marine transfer areas for LNG and LHG, which are defined in
Sec. 127.005. PHMSA's jurisdictional authority, as defined in 49 CFR
193.2001, does not include marine cargo transfer areas, with the
exception of siting requirements for the facility. Through its
regulations, the Coast Guard makes it clear to the regulated industry
that ASME B31.3-2020, referenced in Sec. 127.1101, must be used for
the construction of piping systems located in the marine transfer areas
for waterfront facilities handling LHG. Also, through its regulations,
the Coast Guard makes it clear to the regulated industry that NFPA 70
2020, referenced in Sec. Sec. 127.107, 127.201, and 127.1107, must be
used for the construction of electrical systems and warning alarms
located in the marine transfer areas for LNG and LHG.
The Coast Guard agrees with many of the points raised by these
commenters and understands that there may be certain circumstances when
the editions of standards we incorporate by reference are different
than the editions of the standards incorporated by other state or
Federal agencies. The Coast Guard has chosen to incorporate the latest
editions of the standards referenced in Sec. 127.003 in order to meet
the intent of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119
(Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities),\10\ which
requires that agencies incorporate the most recent standards to enhance
safety with minimum cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ <a href="https://www.nist.gov/system/files/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_01-22-2016.pdf">https://www.nist.gov/system/files/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_01-22-2016.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard coordinated with FERC and PHMSA on this rulemaking.
Nonetheless, the Coast Guard intends to work with FERC and PHMSA to
update the existing IA shared between the agencies, which may provide
an opportunity to address differences in the editions of the standards
each agency has incorporated by reference in its regulations.
The Coast Guard also received a question submitted directly to the
project manager, which the Coast Guard has posted in the docket folder
for transparency. The question was related to information presented in
the NPRM, and asked which three facility owners the Coast Guard met
with and whether there are notes or summaries from those meetings. In
response, we notified the requestor that the three facilities were Tote
Maritime, Harvey Gulf Marine International, and Eagle LNG. The
substance of the meetings is summarized in the NPRM,\11\ and no
additional notes are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 85 FR 62651, at 62654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Discussion of the Rule
This final rule amends 33 CFR part 127. With this final rule, we
are finalizing the following three changes:
First, the Coast Guard is revising its existing regulations to
allow certain LNG fuel facilities to conduct an ORA instead of a WSA
without first obtaining COTP approval to do so. By allowing LNG fuel
facilities that only handle LNG as fuel and do not transfer LNG as
cargo to or from a vessel to use an ORA in lieu of a WSA, without
submitting an alternative request and meeting with the COTP, this final
rule reduces the regulatory burden on LNG fuel facilities. This is
accomplished by reducing the scope of the analysis and the amount of
information facility owners will have to submit to the Coast Guard,
eliminating an unnecessary administrative burden on these entities.
Second, the Coast Guard is updating the technical standards already
incorporated by reference in part 127 to reflect the most recent
published editions of these standards. These technical standards apply
to LNG fuel facilities, LNG import/export facilities, and waterfront
facilities handling LHG.
Third, for LNG import/export facilities that must comply with the
WSA requirements in Sec. 127.007, the Coast Guard is requiring these
facilities to provide information at the time the WSA is submitted
regarding the nation of registry for vessels transporting LNG that are
reasonably anticipated to be servicing the facilities, and the
nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board those
vessels. The Coast Guard is making this change to assist in meeting
obligations under section 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006.\12\ This statute requires the Coast Guard,
when operating as a contributing agency in the FERC shoreside licensing
process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to provide this
information to FERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Public Law 109-241, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following paragraphs explain additional, minor ways the final
rule differs from the proposal on which we received public comments.
None of these differences alter how the rule affects regulated
entities, and so no additional notice or opportunity to comment on them
is necessary.
The Coast Guard will amend the proposed authority citation for 33
CFR part 127 from ``Pub. L. 109-241, sec.
[[Page 5664]]
304(c)(2)'' to ``33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2),'' because, on January 1, 2021,
that section of the statute was codified at 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2). The
authority citation also reflects a recent revision to the delegation of
authorities from the Secretary to the Coast Guard.
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to update the existing ASTM
F1121-87, Standard Specification for International Shore Connections
for Marine Fire Applications, by replacing the Reapproved 2010 edition
with the Reapproved 2015 edition. Since publication of the NPRM, the
Coast Guard learned that ASTM published ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved in
2019) in January 2020 without change. The substantive content in the
ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019) remains the same as the Reapproved 2010
and Reapproved 2015 editions. ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019) is the
publication most readily available to the public. Accordingly, this
final rule references the ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019) in Sec. Sec.
127.003(c)(2), 127.611, and 127.1511.
Additionally, in the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to update the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) ASME B31.3-1993
standard by replacing it with the ASME B31.3-2018. Since publication of
the NPRM, the Coast Guard learned that ASME issued ASME B31.3-2020 on
June 18, 2021. As a result, the Coast Guard is incorporating the latest
edition of this standard in the final rule to ensure that piping
systems used on waterfront facilities handling LHG are designed and
constructed in accordance with ASME B31.3-2020. This standard is a
technical engineering standard used by design engineers to ensure that
piping systems are safe for use with hazardous liquids under pressure.
Changes between the 2018 and 2020 editions include both minor editorial
corrections as well as technical changes associated with stress
calculations and material selections. The changes between editions have
no cost impact on owners and operators of waterfront facilities
handling LHG, but rather affect the methods and considerations used by
design engineers to evaluate materials and calculate stress levels in
piping systems. This final rule references ASME B31.3-2020 in
Sec. Sec. 127.003(b)(2) and 127.1101(a).
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to update the existing ASME
B16.5 standard by replacing the 1992 edition with the 2017 edition.
Since publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard learned that ASME issued
ASME B16.5-2020 on January 29, 2021. The regulations in Sec.
127.1102(a)(4)(ii) require that each hose within the marine transfer
area for LHG used for the transfer of LHG or its vapors to or from a
vessel must meet the flange requirements contained in ASME B16.5. This
standard is a technical standard used by designers and manufacturers
and has no impact on facility owners and operators. Each new edition of
this standard has a table in the front of the document that identifies
the changes made to the edition. After evaluating the extent of the
changes to ASME B16.5-2020, the Coast Guard determined the changes deal
with such things as stress calculations, new materials, and other
technical items, which have no direct cost to owners and operators of
LNG fuel facilities. Incorporating the latest edition available will
ensure that facilities constructed after the final rule is published
will be using the most recent industry standards when they are
designing and constructing their transfer hose systems. Accordingly, in
this final rule, reference to ASME B16.5-2020 is made in Sec. Sec.
127.003(b)(1) and 127.1102(a)(4)(ii).
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed new paragraph (g) of Sec.
127.007 to require an owner or operator intending to build a new LNG
facility to submit the LOI no later than the date that the owner or
operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 18 CFR 153 or 157,
and include the nation of registry for, and the nationality or
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting
natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the LNG
facility. During review of the regulatory text, we realized that it is
best to include this text in existing paragraph (a), which contains the
requirements for submitting an LOI to the COTP no later than the date
that the owner or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under
18 CFR parts 153 and 157. Therefore, we are moving the text from
proposed new paragraph (g) to existing paragraph (a)(1).
Because we are not finalizing the change we proposed in new
paragraph (g), existing paragraphs (g) and (h) do not need to be
redesignated as paragraphs (h) and (i). Therefore, new paragraph (j) is
being redesignated as new paragraph (i).
VI. Incorporation by Reference
Section 127.003 of the final rule incorporates by reference 14
standards. Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, a publication is
eligible for incorporation by reference if it meets Office of the
Federal Register policies and is reasonably available to and usable by
the class of persons affected. Regulations in part 51 require that
agencies discuss, in the final rule, ways that the materials the agency
incorporates by reference are reasonably available, to interested
parties and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In
addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material.
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section VII.L. of this
final rule summarizes the major provisions of the standards that the
Coast Guard incorporates by reference into Sec. 127.003. Interested
parties can purchase copies of these standards directly from the
sources listed in Sec. 127.003, or make arrangements to inspect them
at a Coast Guard facility.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
The Coast Guard performed the regulatory analysis of this final
rule after considering relevant existing statutes and Executive orders.
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 both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
OMB has not designated this final rule a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB
has not reviewed it. A regulatory analysis follows.
The following paragraphs explain the impact of the final rule and
the alternatives we considered. The Coast Guard received five comment
submissions during the 60-day comment period that ended on December 5,
2020. We received one comment on the third alternative that we will
address in the alternative section. We received no public comments on
the estimated benefits and costs; hence, the methodology employed in
the regulatory analysis remains unchanged. However, we have updated the
wage rates and other prices to capture changes in these values since
the publication of the NPRM. In particular, while the NPRM used 2018
values, this final rule uses 2020 wage rates and prices.
[[Page 5665]]
The Coast Guard's authority to address safety and security issues
raised by the increased use of LNG by maritime vessels is the basis for
this final rule. In this final rule, the Coast Guard is making it
easier to conduct an ORA instead of a WSA for certain LNG facilities
due to the size and scope of these facilities' operations. An ORA
focuses on the safety and security associated with shore-based
operations within the marine transfer area, whereas a WSA focuses on
the risks and vulnerabilities of the waterway associated with an LNG
import/export facility. ORAs and WSAs follow similar procedures for
assessing risk, and the Coast Guard determined that it could narrow the
scope of the assessment for an LNG fuel facility to focus on operations
solely taking place at the facility if LNG tank vessels do not deliver
to the facility using the associated waterway.
We estimated the benefits and costs of this final rule against the
no-action baseline. We determined that removing the requirements that
LNG fuel facilities submit an alternative request and meet with the
COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA has quantifiable benefits in
the form of cost savings. We also determined that updating standards
incorporated by reference in this final rule has unquantified benefits.
Table 1 of this analysis provides a summary of the affected population,
cost savings, unquantified benefits, and no-cost changes of this final
rule. We estimate an annualized cost savings to industry of $16,586
(with a 7-percent discount rate), and an annualized cost savings to the
government of $700 (with a 7-percent discount rate), for a total net
annualized cost savings of $17,287 in 2020 dollars, using a 7-percent
discount rate. This is compared to the proposed rule's estimated total
net annualized cost savings of $16,843 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-
percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In this regulatory analyses, ``LNG fuel facility'' refers
to a waterfront facility that handles LNG for the sole purpose of
providing LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a
marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from
vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo. ``LNG import/
export facility'' refers to any structure on, in, or under the
navigable waters of the United States, or any structure on land or
any area on shore immediately adjacent to such waters, used or
capable of being used to transfer liquefied natural gas, in bulk, to
or from a vessel. ``LHG facility'' refers to any structure on, in,
or under the navigable waters of the United States, or any structure
on land or any area on shore immediately adjacent to such waters,
used or capable of being used to transfer liquefied hazardous gas,
in bulk, to or from a vessel. These terms are used for convenience
in this preamble and do not appear in the regulatory text.
Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability \13\................ New LNG import/export facilities.
New LNG fuel facilities. New LHG
Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population............... 20 new LNG import/export facilities
over the 10-year analysis period.
10 new LNG fuel facilities over the
10-year analysis period. 30 new LHG
facilities over the 10-year
analysis period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to Industry (7- 10-year: ($116,496) *
percent discount rate).
-------------------------------------
Annualized: ($16,586) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to Government (7- 10-year: ($4,918) *
percent discount rate).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized: ($700) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No cost requirements.............. Update incorporated technical
standards to reflect the most
recent published editions. Require
the Letter of Intent (LOI) of a new
LNG import/export facility to
include information on the nation
of registry for, and the
nationality or citizenship of
officers and crew serving on board,
vessels transporting natural gas
that are reasonably anticipated to
be servicing that facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified Benefit.............. Updating standards incorporate by
reference improves clarity, and
alleviates discrepancies and
unnecessary duplications between
regulatory standards and industry
best practices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Costs are in 2020 dollars.
Affected Population
As of 2020, there are 12 existing LNG import/export facilities, 3
existing LNG fuel facilities, and 106 existing LHG facilities that are
regulated under 33 CFR part 127. No new facilities have been
constructed since the publication of the proposed rule. Based on the
Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)
database regarding activation dates of the 3 existing LNG fuel
facilities and the projected activation dates of 1 LNG fuel facility
under construction, we estimate that 10 new LNG fuel facilities will be
built during the 10-year analysis period, or 1 annually.\14\ Using
MISLE data on existing LNG import/export facilities, we estimate that
20 new LNG import/export facilities will be built during the 10-year
analysis period, or 2 annually. Using MISLE data, we estimate that 30
new LHG facilities will be built during the 10-year analysis period, or
3 annually. However, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume that,
on average, each year 3 new LHG facilities will replace 3 retiring LHG
facilities for a static total population of 106 facilities. Table 2
presents the projected number of LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel
facilities, and LHG facilities over the 10-year analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The first LNG fuel facility in the United States became
operational in 2016. The second and third became operational in 2018
and 2019, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule finalizes the three substantive changes proposed in the
NPRM to existing regulations that impact different segments of the
affected population. First, the final rule modifies current regulations
to allow LNG fuel facilities that do not receive LNG from vessels to
conduct an ORA instead of the WSA without first obtaining COTP approval
per existing Sec. 127.007, which impacts one new LNG fuel facility
annually. Second, the final rule updates the technical standards
already incorporated by reference in part 127 to
[[Page 5666]]
reflect the most recent published editions of these standards, which
impacts one new LNG fuel facility, two new LNG import/export
facilities, and three replacement LHG facilities annually. Third, the
final rule requires that LNG import/export facilities must comply with
the WSA requirements in Sec. 127.007 to provide information at the
time the WSA is submitted regarding the nation of registry for vessels
transporting LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the
facilities and the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew
serving on board those vessels, which impacts two new LNG import/export
facilities annually.
BILLING CODE 9100-04-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.003
[[Page 5667]]
Benefits
Cost Savings to Industry
The quantified benefits of this final rule are due to the cost
savings associated with the new requirement allowing businesses that
intend to build an LNG fuel facility, modify an existing LNG fuel
facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility to complete an
LOI and ORA instead of an LOI and a WSA without submitting an
alternative request and meeting with the COTP.
Currently, an owner intending to build a new LNG fuel facility has
the option of either (1) meeting with the COTP and submitting an
alternative request to complete an ORA; or (2) completing a traditional
WSA that focuses on the traffic, security, and navigational hazards of
the affected waterway in addition to operational risk. With the final
rule, an owner intending to build a new LNG fuel facility can conduct
an ORA in lieu of a WSA without submitting an alternative request and
having a preliminary meeting with the COTP, resulting in cost savings.
The remainder of this regulatory analysis presents the cost savings
associated with this change.
As noted in the ``Affected Population'' section of this analysis,
there are currently three active LNG fuel facilities and one LNG fuel
facility under construction. Of these four facilities, three submitted
alternative requests and received permission to conduct an ORA under
existing alternative methods because the Coast Guard determined that an
ORA was more appropriate for their intended LNG operations. The other
LNG fuel facility chose to complete a WSA and thus did not submit an
alternative request. Based on this background information and
discussions with subject matter experts (SMEs) in the Coast Guard
Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), we estimate
that, going forward, 75 percent of the LNG fuel facilities will submit
an alternative request and complete an ORA and the other 25 percent
will complete a WSA (see table 3 below).
According to the OMB-approved collection of information (COI)
(Control Number 1625-0049), completing an alternative request requires
2 clerical hours and 8 managerial hours. The mean hourly wage rates in
2020 for clerks and managers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) were $29.50 and $77.48, respectively.\15\ To account for the cost
of employee benefits, such as vacation time and health insurance, we
multiplied the mean hourly wage rates by a load factor of 1.62,
resulting in a loaded mean hourly wage rate of about $47.79 for a clerk
($29.50 x 1.62) and $125.52 for a manager ($77.48 x 1.62).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We used 2020 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics for the natural gas
distribution sector using the North American Industry Classification
System with an industry code of 221200. Readers can view the wage
rates at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_221200.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_221200.htm</a>. Note
that we used the occupational code of Information and Record Clerks,
OC 43-4000, as a proxy for the labor category ``clerk'', and the
occupational code of Architectural and Engineering Managers, OC 11-
9041, as a proxy for the labor category ``manager'' as a manager
with some engineering knowledge is expected to be involved in
completing the alternative request.
\16\ To obtain the load factor, we divided the total cost for
employers by the wages and salaries of private workers for the
utility sector in December 2020, or $67.62 divided by $41.64 equals
1.62. Readers can find this information in Table 4 of the Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation December 2020 News Release available
at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03182021.htm">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03182021.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we estimate the labor cost of completing an alternative
request to be about $1,100, which includes $95.58 in clerical labor
cost (2 clerical hours x $47.79 per hour) and $1,004.16 in managerial
labor cost (8 managerial hours x $125.52 per hour). With this final
rule, LNG fuel facilities will no longer submit an alternative request
to complete an ORA; therefore, each new facility that requests an ORA
will have a one-time benefit of $1,100. As shown in table 3, given that
75 percent of new facilities will submit an alternative request, we
estimate the annualized cost savings to industry to be about $825,
using a 7-percent discount rate.
[[Page 5668]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.004
As part of requesting an alternative approval to conduct an ORA,
the requesting party meets with the COTP to discuss the alternative.
These meetings require representatives of the requesting firm to travel
to meet with the COTP. The travel costs associated with these meetings
mainly depend on the distance between the firm's headquarters and the
site selected for the new LNG fuel facility. Review of the headquarters
locations and the site locations of existing and under construction LNG
fuel facilities in our MISLE database suggests that 75 percent of the
facilities
[[Page 5669]]
are approximately an 80-mile round trip drive from the COTP; therefore,
we assume the representatives of these facilities will drive to the
meeting. Flight travel will be required for visits to the other 25
percent of facilities.\17\ Moreover, discussions with Coast Guard SMEs
in CG-OES revealed that a meeting lasts for an average of 2 hours and
involves two managerial employees, one technical employee (engineer)
and one outside consultant hired by the firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Of the four LNG fuel facilities (three existing and one
projected to be operational in the future), three of the facilities
are, on average, within an 80-mile round trip from their respective
headquarters. One facility located in Jacksonville, FL is an
approximately 1,700-mile round trip from its headquarters' location
in Houston, TX. Based on this information, we assume that 75 percent
of participants will drive while the other 25 percent will fly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours to complete the 80-
mile round trip drive. Accordingly, including driving time, we estimate
the duration of the meeting to be about 4 work hours. The BLS reported
a mean hourly wage rate for an engineer to be $54.18 in 2020; using a
load factor of 1.62, we obtained a loaded mean hourly wage rate of
about $87.77 ($54.18 x 1.62).\18\ Discussions with industry consultants
revealed that the mean hourly wage rate for a consultant completing
WSAs and ORAs for LNG fuel facilities was about $229 in 2017.\19\ Using
the inflation factor of 1.0549, we estimate the consultant mean hourly
wage rate to be about $242 in 2020 dollars.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We calculated an engineer's mean hourly wage using 2020
wage data from BLS' Occupational Employment Statistics for the
natural gas distribution sector using the North American Industry
Classification System with an industry code of 221200. Readers can
use the link <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_221200.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_221200.htm</a>.
Note that the occupational code for engineers is OC 17-2000.
\19\ Discussion with consultants reveal that, on average, in
2017, completing a WSA costs $114,585 and takes about 500 hours.
Based on this information, we estimate the mean consultant wage rate
to be about $229.17 ($114,585 divided by 500 hours equals $229.17
per hour) in 2017.
\20\ To obtain the inflation factor, we divided the GDP deflator
for 2020 (113.625) by the GDP deflator for 2017 (107.710), which
equals 1.054915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the total labor cost per meeting when industry
representatives drive to meet with the COTP to be about $2,323
annually, which is the sum of $351.08 in engineer's labor cost (4 hours
x $87.77), $1,004.16 in manager's labor cost (2 managers x 4 hours x
$125.52), and $968 for the consultant's labor cost (4 hours x $242).
To calculate the cost of driving to the COTP's facility, we use the
2020 General Services Administration (GSA) reimbursable rate for
personal vehicles, $0.575 per mile, which considers the cost of fuel,
depreciation, maintenance, and insurance.\21\ Accordingly, the Coast
Guard estimates that an 80-mile round trip drive to the COTP costs
about $46 (80 miles x $0.575 per mile) per new facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Readers can view the 2020 reimbursable rates for personal
vehicles at <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-mileage-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived">https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-mileage-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this final rule, industry representatives will no longer need
to drive to meet with the COTP to submit and discuss the alternative,
resulting in an annual benefit of $2,369 per meeting ($46 driving cost
+ $2,323 in labor cost). As shown in table 4, given that about 56.25
percent of the new LNG fuel facility representatives will drive to the
COTP, we estimate the annualized cost savings to industry of not having
to drive to the COTP to discuss an alternative request to be about
$1,327 using a 7-percent discount rate.\22\ We estimate the discounted
cost savings to industry of not driving to meet with a COTP to be about
$9,319 over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ We obtained 56.25 percent by multiplying the proportion of
facilities submitting alternative (75 percent) by the proportion
driving to the COTP (75 percent) (i.e., 0.75 multiplied by 0.75
equals 0.5625).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5670]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.005
As stated above, we assume that 25 percent of the facilities
submitting alternative requests will fly representatives to meet with
the COTP. We estimate that, including travel time, the trip will take
approximately 12 work hours.\23\ Accordingly, the labor cost per
meeting will be about $6,970, which is the sum of $1,053 for an
engineer's labor cost (12 hours x $87.77 per hour), $3,012 for a
manager's labor cost (2 managers x 12 hours x $125.52 per hour), and
$2,904 for a consultant's labor cost (12 hours x $242 per hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This estimate is based on the travel time between one LNG
fuel facility's headquarters--which is in Houston--and its facility
location--which is in Jacksonville, FL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the cost of flying to the COTP's facility, we first
computed the cost of a plane ticket, hotel, rental car, and per
diem.\24\ We estimate the cost of each round trip flight (non-stop) to
be about $275, for a total flight cost of $1,100 (4 flight tickets x
$275 per round trip flight ticket).\25\ The Coast Guard assumes that
each individual spends a
[[Page 5671]]
night in a hotel at a cost of $110 per night,\26\ for a total cost of
$440 (4 rooms x $110 per night). We assume that the four
representatives will share a rental car estimated to cost $63 for
transit to and from the airport and the meeting.\27\ We also assume
that each individual needs about 2 days of meals and incidental
allowance (first and last day of travel), which is about $41.25 per day
per person for a total of $330 ($41.25 per day x 2 days x 4
persons).\28\ Accordingly, we estimate the total cost of flight travel
to be about $1,933, which includes the cost of plane tickets ($1,100),
cost of overnight accommodations ($440), cost of a rental car ($63),
and per diem expenses ($330). Hence, we estimate that this final rule
will result in an annual cost savings of about $8,903 per meeting
($1,933 in transportation cost and $6,970 in labor cost), as industry
representatives will no longer need to fly to meet with the COTP. Given
that 18.75 percent of the new LNG fuel facilities (one facility a year)
will choose to fly representatives to meet with the COTP, we estimate
the annualized cost savings to industry of not flying will be about
$1,669 ($8,903 x 1 facility x 0.75 x 0.25) using a 7-percent discount
rate, where 0.75 is the fraction of facilities submitting an
alternative and 0.25 is the fraction flying to meet the COTP.\29\
Moreover, we estimate the discounted or the present value cost savings
to industry of not flying to meet with the COTP to be $11,724 over a
10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table
5 for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ As the future location of new facilities and the
corresponding headquarters of these facilities are unknown, we use
national averages for flight costs, lodging expenses, and per diems.
\25\ U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (<a href="https://www.bts.gov/content/national-level-domestic-average-fare-series">https://www.bts.gov/content/national-level-domestic-average-fare-series</a>)
reports the average cost of a domestic U.S. flight on a quarterly
basis. We estimate the mean cost of domestic flight to be $275 in
2020.
\26\ We multiplied the 2020 standard GSA rate for lodging
($96)--which can be found at FY 2020 Per Diem Rates for Federal
Travelers Released, GSA--by the national mean lodging tax rate of
14.10 percent--which can be found at HVS, 2020 HVS Lodging Tax
Report--USA--for a total cost of $110 per night ($96 per night
multiplied by 14.10 percent tax equals $110 per night) in 2020
dollars.
\27\ We used the $50 cost estimate of a round trip airport
transfer from the ``Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital
Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses
and Certificates of Registry'' interim rule (71 FR 2154, January 13,
2006) as a proxy for the cost of a round trip airport transfer, and
traveling to and from the meeting. We adjusted the $50 amount to
2020 dollars using an inflation factor of 1.2616, which is obtained
by dividing 2020 GDP deflator (113.625) by 2006 GDP deflator
(90.066) (i.e., 113.625 divided by 90.066 equals 1.2616). So, we
estimate the airport transfer cost to be about $63 ($50 multiplied
by 1.616 equals $63) in 2020 dollars.
\28\ The 2020 GSA rate for meals and incidental expenses for
first and last day of travel is $41.25 (See FY 2020 Per Diem Rates
for Federal Travelers Released, GSA).
\29\ We obtained 18.75 percent by multiplying the proportion of
facilities submitting alternative (75 percent) by the proportion
flying to the COTP (25 percent) (i.e., 0.25 multiplied by 0.75
equals 0.1875).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5672]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.006
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Based on reviews of data in MISLE and discussions with Coast Guard
SMEs, we determined that, of the four LNG fuel facilities (three
existing and one under construction), three submitted an alternative
request and completed an ORA and one completed a WSA. Accordingly, we
estimate that under the existing regulatory requirements, 25 percent of
LNG fuel facilities complete a full WSA instead of submitting an
alternative request. With this final rule, new LNG fuel facilities no
longer need to complete a WSA when an ORA is a more appropriate and
cheaper alternative. Discussions with industry representatives revealed
that consulting firms take approximately 289 hours to complete an ORA
and 500 hours to complete a WSA. Accordingly, we estimate the average
cost to complete a WSA to be $121,000 (500 consultant hours x $242 per
hour) and the average cost to complete an ORA to be $69,938 (289
consultant hours x $239 per hour); hence, completing an ORA instead of
a WSA results in a cost savings of about $51,062.
Table 6 presents the annualized cost savings to industry for
completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA. Given that only 25 percent of new
facilities complete a
[[Page 5673]]
WSA, we estimate the total annualized cost savings to industry of
completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA to be approximately $12,766 ($51,062
in cost savings x 1 facility x 0.25 of facilities that submit WSAs),
using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the total discounted or
present value cost savings of completing an ORA in place of a WSA to be
about $89,660 over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent
discount rate.
Table 6--Discounted Cost Savings to Industry of Completing ORAs as Opposed to WSAs
[$2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of
Year Total change new LNG fuel Total cost Cost savings discounted Cost savings discounted
in cost facilities savings at 3% at 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) (b) (c) (d) = (b) x (c) (j) = (i) / (1.03) (k) = (i) / (1.07)
\(a)\ \(a)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................ $51,062 0.25 $12,766 $12,394 $11,930
2................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 12,033 11,150
3................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 11,682 10,420
4................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 11,342 9,739
5................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 11,012 9,102
6................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 10,691 8,506
7................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 10,380 7,950
8................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 10,077 7,430
9................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 9,784 6,944
10............................................... 51,062 0.25 12,766 9,499 6,489
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ .............. ................ 127,655 108,892 89,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized............................... .............. ................ ................. 12,766 12,766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Table 7 contains the total cost savings to industry of removing the
requirements that LNG fuel facilities submit an alternative request and
meet with the COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. We estimate the
total present value or discounted cost savings to industry of this
final rule over a 10-year period of analysis to be about $116,496 in
2020 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the
annualized cost savings to industry to be about $16,586 in 2020
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 5674]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.007
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Cost Savings to Government
Under the current regulation in Sec. 127.017, the Coast Guard must
review alternative requests submitted by facilities seeking to conduct
an ORA in lieu of WSA and meet with facility representatives at the
COTP to discuss
[[Page 5675]]
the alternative. With this final rule, the Coast Guard no longer needs
to review alternative requests, meet with facility representatives, and
review a WSA, resulting in benefits, in the form of cost savings, to
the Federal Government.
According to the OMB-approved COI (Control Number 1625-0049),
reviewing an alternative request requires 4 hours of enlisted staff
time (2 hours of E-5 time and 2 hours of E-6 time) and 1 hour of two
officers' time combined (0.5 hours of O-2 time and 0.5 hours of O-3
time).
To estimate the labor cost of reviewing alternative requests, we
used loaded hourly wage rates of officers and enlisted staff members in
Commandant Instruction 7310.1U, Coast Guard Reimbursable Standard
Rates. For the 2020 fiscal year, the loaded hourly wage rates for O-2,
O-3, E-5, and E-6 employees were $70, $84, $54, and $62,
respectively.\30\ Accordingly, we estimate the total labor cost of
reviewing an alternative request to be about $311 (see table 8 for
details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Readers can find the wage rates of officers and enlisted
staff members on page 2 of Enclosure 2 of the Commandant Instruction
7310.1U: REIMBURSABLE STANDARD RATES, COMDTINST 7310.1U (<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>).
Table 8--Government Cost Savings for No Longer Reviewing Alternative Requests
[$2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours Cost
Employee code Loaded ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cost savings
wage Baseline Post-rule Baseline Post-rule
(a) (b) (c) (d) = (a) x (b) (e) = (a) x (c) (f) = (e)-(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-5.................................................... $54 2 0 $108 $0 $108
E-6.................................................... 62 2 0 124 0 124
O-2.................................................... 70 0.5 0 35 0 35
O-3.................................................... 84 0.5 0 42 0 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. ......... 5 0 309 0 309
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities have currently
submitted an alternative request, and given that we estimate one
submission annually, we estimate the annualized cost savings to the
Federal Government of no longer reviewing these requests to be about
$232 ($309 in cost saving x 1 facility x 0.75), using a 7-percent
discount rate.
In addition to reviewing the alternative request, Coast Guard staff
must also meet with representatives of the firm submitting the
alternative request. Discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in CG-OES
revealed that the meetings involve O-3 and O-4 level Coast Guard staff
and last 2 hours. According to the Commandant Instruction 7310.1U,
Coast Guard Reimbursable Standard Rates, for the 2020 fiscal year, the
loaded mean hourly wage rate for O-4 was $98. Accordingly, we estimate
the total labor cost of reviewing an alternative request to be $364 ((2
hours of O-3 time x $84) + (2 hours of O-4 time x $98)). Therefore,
given the assumption that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities will submit
alternative requests, and given that there will be one submission
annually, the average annual cost savings to the Federal Government of
no longer meeting with facility representatives will be $273 ($364 in
cost saving x 1 facility x 0.75), undiscounted.
Finally, we anticipate the Federal Government will save money by
reviewing an ORA when compared to a WSA. The COI (Control Number 1625-
0049) reports that reviewing a WSA and the corresponding hazard
identification (HAZID) \31\ study requires 20 hours of enlisted staff
time (10 hours of E-5 time and 10 hours of E-6 time) and 40 hours of
officer time (20 hours of O-2 time and 20 hours of O-3 time), costing
approximately $4,240. Based on discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in
Sector Jacksonville, reviewing an ORA and the corresponding HAZID study
requires 38 hours of officer time (19 hours of O-3 time and 19 hours of
O-4 time), costing about $3,458. Accordingly, we estimate the cost
savings from reviewing an ORA instead of a WSA to be about $782 ($4,240
- $3,458), undiscounted (See table 9 for detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ A HAZID study is carried out to identify the main risks
that can occur during LNG transfers from an LNG fuel facility to a
receiving vessel.
Table 9--Government Cost Savings to Review an ORA as Opposed to a WSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours Cost
Employee code Loaded ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cost savings
wage Baseline Post-rule Baseline Post-rule
(a) (b) (c) (d) = (a) x (b) (e) = (a) x (c) (f) = (e)-(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-5....................................................... $54 10 0 $540 $0 $540
E-6....................................................... 62 10 0 620 0 620
O-2....................................................... 70 20 0 1,400 0 1,400
O-3....................................................... 84 20 19 1,680 1,596 84
O-4....................................................... 98 0 19 0 1,862 -1,862
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. ......... 60 38 4,240 3,458 782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, given that only 25 percent of the LNG facilities
currently conduct a WSA, instead of submitting an alternative request,
we estimate the annualized cost savings to the government of reviewing
an ORA instead of a WSA to be about $196 ($782 in cost savings x 1
facility x 0.25) using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 10 presents the total cost savings to the Federal Government
associated with eliminating the requirement to submit an alternative
request and meet with the COTP to
[[Page 5676]]
conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. We estimate the total discounted or
present value cost savings to the Federal Government over a 10-year
period of analysis to be about $4,918, using a 7-percent discount rate.
We estimate the annualized cost savings to the Federal Government to be
about $700, using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 10--Total Government Cost Savings
[$2020]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings item
--------------------------------------------------
Year Alternative Meeting with Total undiscounted cost Cost savings discounted Cost savings discounted
submission industry Reviewing WSAs savings at 3% at 7%
review representatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (b) + (c) + (d) (f) = (e) / (1.03) (g) = (e) / (1.07)
\(a)\ \(a)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................................. $232 $273 $196 $700 $680 $654
2.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 660 612
3.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 641 572
4.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 622 534
5.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 604 499
6.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 586 467
7.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 569 436
8.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 553 408
9.................................................................. 232 273 196 700 537 381
10................................................................. 232 273 196 700 521 356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................................... .............. ................ .............. 7,003 5,973 4,918
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized................................................. .............. ................ .............. ....................... 700 700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Total Cost Savings
Table 11 summarizes the total cost savings of this final rule to
industry and the Federal Government for the 10-year period of analysis.
We estimate the total discounted or present value cost savings to
industry and the Federal Government over a 10-year period of analysis
to be about $121,414 in 2020 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
We estimate the annualized cost savings to be about $17,287 in 2020
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 11--Total Cost Savings to Industry and the Federal Government
[$2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost Total cost Total Discounted cost savings
Year savings to savings to undiscounted -------------------------------
industry government cost savings 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... $16,586 $700 $17,287 $16,783 $16,156
2................................... 16,586 700 17,287 16,294 15,099
3................................... 16,586 700 17,287 15,820 14,111
4................................... 16,586 700 17,287 15,359 13,188
5................................... 16,586 700 17,287 14,912 12,325
6................................... 16,586 700 17,287 14,477 11,519
7................................... 16,586 700 17,287 14,056 10,765
8................................... 16,586 700 17,287 13,646 10,061
9................................... 16,586 700 17,287 13,249 9,403
10.................................. 16,586 700 17,287 12,863 8,788
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 165,863 7,003 172,866 147,458 121,414
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.................. ............ ............ .............. 17,287 17,287
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Unquantified Benefits
This final rule has unquantified benefits to the regulated
industry. This final rule updates the standards incorporated by
reference to reflect the latest standards available to industry and
requires all new LNG import/export facilities and waterfront facilities
handling LHG to meet these standards. This requirement benefits the
regulated industry as it eliminates the confusion that may arise from
different standards existing in Coast Guard regulations that do not
match current industry standards.
Cost
The requirements of this final rule do not add to industry costs
compared to the no-action baseline. In particular, we determined that
updating industry standards incorporated by reference in the regulation
is a no-cost change. Based on discussions with an industry consultant
and SMEs in CG-OES, we determined that industry builds new, expanded,
and modified LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG
facilities to the most current standards available at the time, and not
to the outdated standards currently codified in part 127. In addition,
the new industry standards do not apply to facilities constructed,
expanded, or modified under a contract-awarded after the implementation
date of the final rule. Hence, we do not anticipate owners and
operators of new, expanded and modified facilities to incur any cost
[[Page 5677]]
to meet the updated or new industry standards.
In addition, as part of the LOI, the Coast Guard is adding a new
paragraph, Sec. 127.007(a)(1). This paragraph requires LNG import/
export facilities that complete a WSA to provide information to the
Coast Guard on the nation of registry and the nationality or
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board vessels transporting
LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility. This
requirement will only be applicable when a facility has to submit the
LOI and WSA to the Coast Guard, and is not required every time a vessel
comes to port. Because both the LOI and WSA are submitted years before
the facility becomes operational, Coast Guard SMEs have determined that
it is highly unlikely any specific details regarding vessels and their
crew will be known at the time the facility submits the LOI and WSA.
Table 12 summarizes the changes with no cost impacts.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 5678]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.008
[[Page 5679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.009
[[Page 5680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.010
[[Page 5681]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.011
[[Page 5682]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.012
[[Page 5683]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.013
[[Page 5684]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.014
[[Page 5685]]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Alternatives
While developing this final rule, the Coast Guard considered three
alternatives to the rule. We present a summary of the alternatives
below and show their corresponding impact and cost savings in table 13.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would accept the status quo
and review each proposal for an LNG fuel facility on a case-by-case,
equivalency basis. We rejected this alternative because the Coast Guard
believes this approach is inefficient in an environment of growing
interest in LNG fuel because it does not respond to the needs of the
U.S. maritime industry. This alternative would not impose any
additional costs on industry, nor will this option result in cost
savings for the affected facilities or the Coast Guard.
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA, But Do Not Update the IBR Standards
Alternative
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would allow new LNG fuel
facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA without submitting an
alternative request and meeting with the COTP. However, under this
alternative, the Coast Guard would not update the existing IBR
standards. This alternative would not impose any additional costs to
industry and would result in cost savings. We rejected this alternative
because the regulations would continue to reference outdated standards
instead of reflecting industry best practices and the best technologies
available to industry.
Alternative 3: Continue To Meet With the COTP When Submitting the ORA
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would allow new LNG fuel
facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA, as long as the facility
representatives continue to meet with the COTP and get the ORA
approved. Although this alternative would be less burdensome compared
to the baseline, the Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it
would require industry representatives to continue meeting with the
COTP in person to discuss the ORA.
One commenter expressed support for this alternative, noting that
it would be beneficial if owners and operators continue to meet with
the COTP before submitting an ORA, as this would reduce the amount of
work facility owners would have to do to get the LNG fuel facility
approved. Another commenter added that the meeting provides the COTP
with an opportunity to notice any potential safety and security risks
to the facility. As stated before, the Coast Guard expects owners and
operators to continue meeting with the COTP, but has determined that
the preliminary requirement for certain facilities to obtain the COTP's
approval prior to beginning the ORA should be eliminated.
Table 13--Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Impact of the
Alternative cost savings alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule..................... $17,287 Codifies industry
standards, establishes
national baseline
safety standards and
alleviates
discrepancies and
unnecessary
duplication between
regulatory standards
and industry best
practices. In
addition, it reduces
the burden to industry
by allowing new LNG
fuel facilities to
submit an ORA instead
of a WSA without first
having to submit an
alternative request
and meet with the COTP
to obtain approval.
Alternative 1: No Action....... 0 This alternative would
not codify minimum
safety standards,
respond to industry
needs, or reduce
industry burden. It
would not impose any
additional costs.
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA, 17,287 This alternative would
but do not update the IBR reduce the burden to
Standards Alternative. industry by allowing
new LNG fuel
facilities to submit
an ORA instead of a
WSA without first
having to submit an
alternative request
and meet with the COTP
to obtain approval.
However, it would not
update IBR standards.
This alternative would
not impose any
additional costs to
industry.
Alternative 3: Continue to Meet \32\ 14,018 This alternative would
with the COTP when submitting codify industry
an ORA. standards establishing
national baseline
safety standards. In
addition, it would
reduce the burden to
industry by allowing
new LNG fuel
facilities to submit
an ORA instead of a
WSA without first
having to submit an
alternative request.
However, this
alternative would
still require meeting
with the COTP, making
it more burdensome
compared to the final
rule. This alternative
would not impose any
additional costs to
industry, but has less
cost savings compared
to Alternative 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Small Entities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ This is cost savings under the preferred option ($17,287)
minus the cost of meeting to industry, which equals $1,327 when
driving and $1,669 when flying, for a total of $2,996; and the cost
of meeting to Government, which is $273. $17,287-($2,996 + 273) =
$14,018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
There were no public comments pertaining to the analysis on small
entities.
This rule applies to new LNG fuel facilities, LNG import and export
facilities, and new LHG facilities. A threshold analysis of the small
entity impacts follows.
LNG Fuel Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined this rule will not generate costs on
existing LNG fuel facilities but will generate cost savings to one new
facility per year. In particular, we estimate that this rule will
generate a net cost savings of about $16,586, using 7-percent discount
rate, to one new LNG fuel facility per year, compared to the $16,153
net cost savings calculated in the proposed rule. To estimate the
potential impact on small entities, we compare the $16,586 in net cost
savings with the annual revenue data of the new LNG fuel facility
impacted by this rule. The Coast Guard determined that an entity would
have to have an annual revenue of $1,658,600 or less for this rule to
have an impact greater than 1 percent of revenue.
Using the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards
[[Page 5686]]
table,\33\ we determined that two of the four LNG fuel facilities are
small entities. These two small entities have a North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code of 213112 and 541990. Based on SBA's
size standards table, the size standard for these codes is $38.5
million and $15 million, respectively. Publicly available data suggests
that the annual revenue of the two facilities is about $2.4 million and
about $3.8 million, respectively. Thus, conservatively assuming the new
LNG fuel facility will have annual revenues equivalent to the smallest
entity in the industry, we estimate that the economic impact, in the
form of cost savings, of this rule will be approximately 0.69 percent
of revenue (($16,586 / $2,400,000) x 100 = 0.6910)), compared to the
0.673 percent of revenue calculated in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Readers can view industry size standards at <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards</a> (accessed July
11, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No not-for-profit organizations are involved with LNG fuel
facilities. In addition, this rule will not have an adverse or
beneficial impact on small government entities.
LNG Import/Export Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined that this rule will have no cost or
cost savings impact on existing and new LNG import/export facilities.
Moreover, no not-for-profit organizations are involved with LNG import/
export facilities. This rule will not have an adverse or beneficial
impact on small government entities.
LHG Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined that this rule will have no cost or
cost savings impact on existing and new LHG facilities. Moreover, no
not-for-profit organizations are involved with LHG facilities. This
rule will not have an adverse or beneficial impact on small government
entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this 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 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 rule calls for a revised collection 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 information collection, 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.
Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and
Liquefied Hazardous Gas.
OMB Control Number: 1625-0049.
Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard currently
collects information from waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG
under 33 CFR part 127. The current information collection request
contains requirements in the following sections: LOIs, WSAs, the
submission of appeals to the Coast Guard, the submission of
alternatives to the Coast Guard, Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals,
Certification of the Person in Charge, Declaration of Inspection, and
Records of Maintenance. In addition, this rule will add a new
collection of information for ORA submissions for new LNG fuel
facilities.
Need for Information: The Coast Guard has regulations that provide
safety standards for the design and construction, equipment,
operations, maintenance, personnel training, and fire protection at
waterfront facilities handling LNG. These regulations help reduce the
probability that an accident could occur and help reduce the damage and
injury to persons and property should an accident occur.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard currently uses the information
collected for the following purposes: (1) To determine the suitability
of a waterfront facility handling LNG to safely conduct LNG fuel
transfer operations; (2) to properly evaluate alternative procedures to
ensure they provide at least the same degree of safety as the
regulations; (3) to ensure that safe operating procedures and an
effective training program are set up by the waterfront facility
operator; (4) to ensure that effective procedures have been set up by
the waterfront facility operator to respond to emergencies; ensure the
person in charge of an LNG or LHG transfer is properly qualified; and
(5) to verify that persons in charge are following proper transfer
procedures.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are LNG import/
export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG facilities.
Number of Respondents: This rule does not change the number of
respondents. However, we anticipate the number of waterfront facilities
handling LNG will increase by three annually (two new LNG import/export
facilities and one LNG fuel facility). We also anticipate three new LHG
facilities will replace three retiring facilities annually.
Frequency of Response: The number of responses will vary by
requirement. This rule does not change the frequency of responses for
existing requirements. However, this rule introduces a new ORA
requirement, which is a one-time requirement for a LNG fuel facility.
Burden of Response: The burden per response for each regulatory
requirement varies. For the new ORA requirement, we estimate it will
take 289 hours to complete. Submitting an ORA in place of a WSA (500
hours per response) is a savings of 211 hours per response.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: To account for the change in the
facility population and the new ORA option, we estimate that the burden
will increase by 1,956 hours.
For a new LNG import/export facility, this rule will require
providing information to the Coast Guard at the time the WSA is
submitted on the nation of registry for, and the nationality or
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board vessels transporting
natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that
facility. The Coast Guard does not expect the facility to have specific
details regarding vessels and their crew when it submits the LOI and
WSA to the Coast Guard, as these submissions happen several years
before the facility begins operations. The Paperwork Reduction Act will
not apply to this requirement as the Coast Guard anticipates only two
new LNG
[[Page 5687]]
import/export facilities per year will be subject to this
requirement.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Paperwork Reduction Act applies to collections of
information using identical questions posed to, or reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons per year.
See 5 CFR 1320.3(c), and Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum
for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent
Regulatory Agencies, dated April 7, 2010, at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
You are not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has not
yet completed its review of this collection. Therefore, we are not
making Sec. 127.008 effective until OMB completes action on our
information collection request, at which time we will publish a Federal
Register notice describing OMB's action and, if OMB grants approval,
notifying you when Sec. 127.008 takes effect.
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 rule, with respect to the LOI, WSA, and ORA submission
requirements and COTP approval (33 CFR 127.007, 127.008, 127.009,
127.015, and 127.017), does not conflict with State interests. They are
procedural requirements for the Coast Guard's own safety and security
risk analysis, approval, and appeal process of a new, modified, or
reactivated facility and its attendant LNG transfer operations. As it
relates to other requirements imposed by individual States, or their
political subdivisions, the submission and approval process for the
construction of a new structure will be unaffected by this rule.
Moreover, with respect to LNG transfer operations that may be
included in the LOI, WSA, and ORA submissions, pursuant to 46 U.S.C.
70011(b)(1), Congress has expressly authorized the establishment of
``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 the Supreme
Court's decision in United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109-110
(2000).
Regarding the updates of technical standards referenced in 33 CFR
part 127, it is Congress's express intent that, with respect to
waterfront structures, States retain the power to regulate to higher
standards than those promulgated by the Coast Guard. As stated in 46
U.S.C. 70011(c), ``State Law.--Nothing in this section, with respect to
structures, prohibits a State or political subdivision thereof from
prescribing higher safety equipment or safety standards than those that
may be prescribed by regulations under this section.'' Thus, Congress
has made clear that the Federal standards promulgated under this
section establish the uniform minimum standards of the United States,
but individual States are entitled to impose higher safety equipment
requirements or higher safety standards for structures within their
jurisdiction.
Therefore, other than with respect to structures as noted above,
because the States may not regulate within these categories where such
regulation conflicts with Federal requirements, 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 $100,000,000 (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 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 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 and Incorporation by Reference
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
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule incorporates by reference the following new voluntary
consensus standards:
<bullet> Det Norske Veritas (DNV), DNVGL-RP-G105, Recommended
Practice, Development and operation of liquefied natural gas bunkering
facilities, October 2015 Edition. This standard provides guidance to
the industry on the developmental, organizational, technical,
functional, and operational issues of LNG bunkering (fueling)
facilities in order to ensure global
[[Page 5688]]
compatibility and secure a high level of safety, integrity, and
reliability. The DNVGL-RP-G105 standard was selected because it aligns
with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), (``ISO/
TS 18683''), discussed below. Both of these standards provide guidance
to industry on conducting risk assessments that are focused on
providing LNG as a marine fuel (bunkering operations).
<bullet> International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
(``ISO/TS 18683''), Guidelines for systems and installations for supply
of LNG as fuel to ships, First Edition, January 15, 2015. This standard
gives guidance on the minimum requirements for the design and operation
of the LNG bunkering (fueling) facility, including the interface
between the LNG supply facilities and receiving ships.
<bullet> ISO 28460:2010(E), (``ISO 28460''), Petroleum and natural
gas industries--Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas--
Ship-to-shore interface and port operations, First edition, December
15, 2010. This standard specifies the requirements for ship, terminal,
and port service providers to ensure the safe transit of an LNG carrier
through the port area and the safe and efficient transfer of its cargo.
This rule incorporates by reference the following updated voluntary
consensus standards:
<bullet> American Petroleum Institute (API), API Recommended
Practice 2003, (``API RP 2003'') Protection Against Ignitions Arising
Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth Edition, September
2015. This standard presents the current state of knowledge and
technology in the fields of static electricity and stray currents
applicable to the prevention of hydrocarbon ignition in the petroleum
industry, based on both scientific research and practical experience.
<bullet> The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ASME
B16.5-2020, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS \1/2\ through NPS 24
Metric/Inch Standard, Issued January 29, 2021. This standard covers
pressure-temperature ratings, materials, dimensions, tolerances,
marking, testing, and methods of designating openings for pipe flanges
and flanged fittings.
<bullet> ASME B31.3-2020, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure
Piping, B31, Issued June 18, 2021. This standard contains requirements
for piping typically found in petroleum refineries; chemical,
pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic plants;
and related processing plants and terminals. It covers materials and
components, design, fabrication, assembly, erection, examination,
inspection, and testing of piping.
<bullet> ASTM International, ASTM E119-20, Standard Test Methods
for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, approved May 1,
2020. This standard provides methods of fire tests applicable to
assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural
materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls, partitions,
columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies
for floors and roofs. This standard also applies to other assemblies
and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a
finished building.
<bullet> ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Specification
for International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications,
approved December 1, 2019, published January 2020. This standard covers
the specifications for the design and manufacture of international
shore connections used with marine firefighting systems during an
emergency when a stricken ship has a system failure.
<bullet> International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC
60079-29-1, Explosive atmospheres--Part 29-1: Gas detectors--
Performance requirements of detectors for flammable gases, Edition 2.0,
July 2016. This standard specifies general requirements for
construction, testing, and performance, and describes the test methods
that apply to portable, transportable, and fixed apparatus for the
detection and measurement of flammable gas or vapor concentrations with
air.
<bullet> National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), NFPA 10,
Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective
August 21, 2017. This standard applies to the selection, installation,
inspection, maintenance, recharging, and testing of portable
extinguishing equipment and Class D extinguishing agents.
<bullet> NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018
Edition, effective September 6, 2017. This standard applies to the
storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids,
including waste liquids.
<bullet> NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding,
Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2018.
This standard covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life, and
loss of property from fire or explosion as a result of hot work.
<bullet> NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and
Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective
November 25, 2018. This standard provides minimum fire protection,
safety, and related requirements for the location, design,
construction, security, operation, and maintenance of LNG plants.
<bullet> NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, effective
August 25, 2019. The provisions of this standard apply to the design,
modification, construction, inspection, maintenance, and testing of
electrical systems, installations, and equipment.
The list of these standards and the locations where these standards
are available is found in Sec. 127.003.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this 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
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. A final 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 and L54 in Appendix
A, Table 1 of DHS Directive Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.
1.\35\ Paragraph A3 pertains to promulgation of rules and other
guidance documents that interpret or amend existing regulations without
changing its environmental effect. Paragraph L54 pertains to
regulations that are editorial or procedural. This rule promotes the
Coast Guard's maritime safety and Ports and waterway security missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf">https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127
Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 127 as follows:
[[Page 5689]]
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: 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2); 46 U.S.C. 70011 and 70034; 46
U.S.C. Chapter 701; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2,
paragraph (II)(92)(a).
0
2. Amend Sec. 127.001 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``existing'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (f).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 127.001 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d), and 127.019(b) of subpart A
of this part apply to the marine transfer area for LNG of each inactive
facility.
* * * * *
(f) Waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed,
expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after March 4, 2022, are
required to comply with the applicable standards referenced in Sec.
127.003. All other facilities, unless expanded or modified in
accordance with this part, are required to meet previously applicable
standards but may request to apply a later edition of the standards in
accordance with Sec. 127.017.
0
3. Revise Sec. 127.003 to read as follows:
Sec. 127.003 Incorporation by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a document in
the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public.
All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast
Guard, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), 2703
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509,
202-372-1410, and is available from the sources listed in the following
paragraphs. It is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3c5d18dcacdd0d3c6c0d7cacccde3cdc2d1c28dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1076623e797e6360757364797f7e507e7162713e777f66">[email protected]</span></a> or
go to <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>.
(See Sec. 127.017 for alternative compliance methods.)
(a) American Petroleum Institute (API), 200 Massachusetts Avenue
NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001-5571, 202-682-8000, <a href="http://www.api.org">http://www.api.org</a>.
(1) API Recommended Practice 2003 (``API RP 2003''), Protection
Against Ignitions Arising Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents,
Eighth Edition, September 2015, for Sec. 127.1101(h).
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 800-843-2763, <a href="https://www.asme.org">https://www.asme.org</a>.
(1) ASME B16.5-2020, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS \1/2\
Through NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard, Issued January 29, 2021, for Sec.
127.1102(a).
(2) ASME B31.3-2020, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping,
B31, Issued June 18, 2021, for Sec. 127.1101(a).
(c) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, 610-832-9500, <a href="https://www.astm.org">https://www.astm.org</a>.
(1) ASTM E119-20, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building
Construction and Materials, approved May 1, 2020, for Sec. 127.005.
(2) ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Specification for
International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, approved
December 1, 2019, for Sec. Sec. 127.611 and 127.1511.
(d) Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Veritasveien 1, 1363 H[oslash]vik
Norway, +47 6757 9900, <a href="https://www.dnv.com">https://www.dnv.com</a>.
(1) DNVGL-RP-G105, Recommended Practice, Development and operation
of liquefied natural gas bunkering facilities, October 2015 Edition,
for Sec. 127.008(d).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central
Office, 3 rue de Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131, CH 1211, Geneva 20,
Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, <a href="https://www.iec.ch">https://www.iec.ch</a>.
(1) IEC 60079-29-1, Explosive atmospheres--Part 29-1: Gas
detectors--Performance requirements of detectors for flammable gases,
Edition 2.0, July 2016, for Sec. 127.1203(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(f) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Chemin de
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01
11, <a href="https://www.iso.org">https://www.iso.org</a>.
(1) ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), (``ISO/TS 18683''), Guidelines for
systems and installations for supply of LNG as fuel to ships, First
Edition, January 15, 2015, for Sec. 127.008(d)(1).
(2) ISO 28460:2010(E), (``ISO 28460''), Petroleum and natural gas
industries--Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas--Ship-
to-shore interface and port operations, First edition, December 15,
2010, for Sec. 127.008(d)(2).
(g) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 800-344-3555, <a href="https://www.nfpa.org">https://www.nfpa.org</a>.
(1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018
Edition, effective August 21, 2017, for Sec. Sec. 127.603(a) and
127.1503.
(2) NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 Edition,
effective September 6, 2017, for Sec. Sec. 127.313(b) and 127.1313(b).
(3) NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting,
and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2018, for
Sec. Sec. 127.405(b) and 127.1405(b).
(4) NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective November 25, 2018,
for Sec. Sec. 127.008(d), 127. 101, 127.201(b) and (c), 127.405(a) and
(b), and 127.603(a).
(5) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, effective
August 25, 2019, for Sec. Sec. 127.107(a) and (c), 127.201(c), and
127.1107.
0
4. In Sec. 127.005, revise the definitions of ``Facility'' and ``Fire
endurance rating'' and add a definition for ``LNG fuel facility'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 127.005 Definitions.
* * * * *
Facility means either a waterfront facility handling LHG or a
waterfront facility handling LNG, and includes LNG fuel facilities.
Fire endurance rating means the duration for which an assembly or
structural unit will contain a fire or retain structural integrity when
exposed to the temperatures specified in the standard time-temperature
curve in ASTM E119-20 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
* * * * *
LNG fuel facility means a waterfront facility that handles LNG for
the sole purpose of providing LNG from shore-based structures to
vessels for use as a marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or
receive LNG from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 127.007 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, and paragraphs (a), (b), and (e); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (i).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
[[Page 5690]]
Sec. 127.007 Letter of intent and waterway suitability assessment for
waterfront facilities handling LNG or LHG.
(a) An owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling
LNG or LHG, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand
marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where
the construction or expansion will result in an increase in the size or
frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with
a facility, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Captain of the
Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located.
The LOI must meet the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator of an LNG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date that the owner or operator files a pre-
filing request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157, but, in all cases, at least 1 year
prior to the start of construction. The LOI must include the nation of
registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of the officers and
crew serving on board, vessels transporting LNG that are reasonably
anticipated to be servicing the LNG facility.
(2) The owner or operator of an LHG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date that the owner or operator files with
the Federal or State agency having jurisdiction, but, in all cases, at
least 1 year prior to the start of construction.
(b) An owner or operator intending to reactivate an inactive
facility must submit an LOI that meets paragraph (c) of this section to
the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
(1) The owner or operator of an LNG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date the owner or operator files a pre-
filing request with FERC under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157, but, in all
cases, at least 1 year prior to the start of LNG transfer operations.
(2) The owner or operator of an LHG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date the owner or operator files with the
Federal or State agency having jurisdiction, but, in all cases, at
least 1 year prior to the start of LHG transfer operations.
* * * * *
(e) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG or LHG
facility, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand
marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where
the construction or expansion will result in an increase in the size or
frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with
a facility, must file or update as appropriate a waterway suitability
assessment (WSA) with the COTP of the zone in which the facility is or
will be located. The WSA must consist of a Preliminary WSA and a
Follow-on WSA. A COTP may request additional information during review
of the Preliminary WSA or Follow-on WSA.
* * * * *
(i) An owner or operator intending to construct a new LNG fuel
facility or modify any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG
fuel facility, may comply with Sec. 127.008 in lieu of meeting the
requirements in this section.
0
6. Add Sec. 127.008 to read as follows:
Sec. 127.008 Letter of intent and operational risk assessment for LNG
fuel facilities.
(a) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG fuel
facility, modify construction of any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate
an inactive LNG fuel facility electing to complete an operational risk
assessment (ORA) in lieu of a WSA as outlined in Sec. 127.007, must
submit an LOI and ORA to the COTP of the zone in which the LNG fuel
facility is or will be located at least 1 year prior to the start of
LNG transfer operations.
(b) Each LOI must contain the information in Sec. 127.007(c)(1)
through (c)(5).
(c) The owner or operator who submits an LOI under paragraph (a) of
this section must notify the COTP in writing within 15 days of any of
the following:
(1) There is any change in the information submitted under
paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) No LNG fuel transfer operations are scheduled within the next
12 months.
(d) The ORA required by paragraph (a) must:
(1) Be carried out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO/TS 18683 and
Appendix D of DNVGL-RP-G105; or Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A (all
incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003); or other industry
developed risk assessment method acceptable to the Office of Operating
and Environmental Standards, Commandant (CG-OES); and
(2) Consider possible factors affecting the ship/shore interface
and port operations described in Section 6 of ISO 28460 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
0
7. In Sec. 127.009, revise paragraph (a) introductory text and
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 127.009 Letter of recommendation.
(a) After the COTP receives the information and analyses required
by Sec. 127.007 or Sec. 127.008, the COTP issues a Letter of
Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or
LHG marine traffic or the operational safety and security of the LNG
fuel facility to the Federal, State, or local government agencies
having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation, and, at
the same time, sends a copy to the owner or operator, based on the--
(1) Information submitted under Sec. 127.007 or Sec. 127.008;
* * * * *
Sec. 127.011 [Amended]
0
8. Amend Sec. 127.011 by removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in
its place, the word ``must''.
0
9. In Sec. 127.015, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 127.015 Appeals.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Appeal that ruling in writing to the Assistant Commandant for
Prevention Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, (CG-5P), 2703 Martin Luther King
Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; and
* * * * *
(d) The Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy issues a ruling
after reviewing the appeal submitted under paragraph (c) of this
section, which is final agency action.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 127.017, revise the paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.017 Alternatives.
(a) The COTP may allow alternative procedures, methods, or
equipment standards, including alternatives to standards listed in
Sec. 127.003, to be used by an operator instead of any requirements in
this part if--
* * * * *
0
11. Revise Sec. 127.101 to read as follows:
Sec. 127.101 Design and construction: General.
The marine transfer area for LNG must meet the following criteria
in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003):
(a) Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.7;
(b) Chapter 6, Section 6.7;
(c) Chapter 10;
(d) Chapter 11, except Sections 11.9, and 11.10;
(e) Chapter 12;
(f) Chapter 15, except Sections 15.4 and 15.6; and
(g) Annex B.
[[Page 5691]]
0
12. In Sec. 127.107, revise paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 127.107 Electrical power systems.
(a) The electrical power system must have a power source and a
separate emergency power source, so that failure of one source does not
affect the capability of the other source. The system must meet NFPA 70
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
* * * * *
(c) If an auxiliary generator is used as an emergency power source,
it must meet Section 700.12 of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 127.003).
0
13. In Sec. 127.201, revise paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.201 Sensing and alarm systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Meet Section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 127.003).
(c) * * *
(1) Be in each enclosed or covered Class I, Division 1, hazardous
location defined in Section 500.5(B)(1) of NFPA 70 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 127.003) and each area in which flammable or
combustible material is stored; and
(2) Meet Section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 127.003).
Sec. 127.301 [Amended]
0
14. In Sec. 127.301(b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.311 [Amended]
0
15. In Sec. 127.311(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.313 [Amended]
0
16. Amend Sec. 127.313 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in its
place, the word ``must''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing the text ``Chapter 4 of NFPA 30'' and
adding, in its place, the text ``NFPA 30 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.315 [Amended]
0
17. In Sec. 127.315 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.317 [Amended]
0
18. In Sec. 127.317(a) and (b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it
appears, and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.319 [Amended]
0
19. In Sec. 127.319(a) and (b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it
appears and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.321 [Amended]
0
20. In Sec. 127.321, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.401 [Amended]
0
21. In Sec. 127.401, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.403 [Amended]
0
22. In Sec. 127.403, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
0
23. In Sec. 127.405, revise the introductory text and paragraphs
(a)(1) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 127.405 Repairs.
The operator must ensure that--
(a) * * *
(1) The equipment continues to meet the applicable requirements in
this subpart and in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003); and
* * * * *
(b) Welding is done in accordance with NFPA 51B and Section 10.4.3
of NFPA 59A (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
Sec. 127.407 [Amended]
0
24. In Sec. 127.407(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.409 [Amended]
0
25. In Sec. 127.409(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
0
26. In Sec. 127.603, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 127.603 Portable fire extinguishers.
* * * * *
(a) Portable fire extinguishers that meet Section 16.6.1 of NFPA
59A and Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003); and
* * * * *
Sec. 127.611 [Amended]
0
27. In Sec. 127.611, remove the text ``ASTM F 1121'' and add, in its
place, the text ``ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019)''.
Sec. 127.613 [Amended]
0
28. In Sec. 127.613, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.615 [Amended]
0
29. In Sec. 127.615, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.617 [Amended]
0
30. In Sec. 127.617, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. Sec. 127.701 through 127.711 [Removed]
0
31. Remove Sec. Sec. 127.701 through 127.711, including the
undesignated center heading ``Security'' that precedes Sec. 127.701.
Sec. 127.1101 [Amended]
0
32. Amend Sec. 127.1101 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the text ``ASME B31.3'' and adding, in
its place, the text ``ASME B31.3-2020 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 127.003)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (h), after the text ``API RP 2003'' adding the text
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1102 [Amended]
0
33. In Sec. 127.1102(a)(4)(ii), remove the text ``ANSI B16.5'' and
add, in its place, the text ``ASME B16.5-2020 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1103 [Amended]
0
34. In Sec. 127.1103, remove the word ``existing'' wherever it
appears.
Sec. 127.1105 [Amended]
0
35. In Sec. 127.1105 introductory text, remove the word ``existing''.
Sec. 127.1107 [Amended]
0
36. In Sec. 127.1107, after the text ``NFPA 70'' add the text
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1203 [Amended]
0
37. In Sec. 127.1203(a), remove the text ``ANSI S12.13, Part I'' and
add, in its place, the text ``IEC 60079-29-1 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1207 [Amended]
0
38. In Sec. 127.1207(c), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1301 [Amended]
0
39. In Sec. 127.1301(b), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
[[Page 5692]]
Sec. 127.1302 [Amended]
0
40. In Sec. 127.1302(a) introductory text and (c), remove the word
``shall'' wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word
``must''.
Sec. 127.1311 [Amended]
0
41. In Sec. 127.1311, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1313 [Amended]
0
42. Amend Sec. 127.1313 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b),
0
i. Remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, the word ``must'';
and
0
ii. Remove the text, ``Chapter 4 of NFPA 30''; and add, in its place
the text ``NFPA 30 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1315 [Amended]
0
43. In Sec. 127.1315 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1317 [Amended]
0
44. In Sec. 127.1317(a), (d), and (e), remove the word ``shall''
wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1319 [Amended]
0
45. In Sec. 127.1319, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1321 [Amended]
0
46. In Sec. 127.1321, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1325 [Amended]
0
47. In Sec. 127.1325 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1401 [Amended]
0
48. In Sec. 127.1401, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1403 [Amended]
0
49. In Sec. 127.1403, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1405 [Amended]
0
50. Amend Sec. 127.1405 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the word ``and''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b), after the text ``NFPA 51B'', add the text
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1407 [Amended]
0
51. In Sec. 127.1407(a) introductory text and paragraphs (c), (d),
(e), and (f), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, and add,
in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1409 [Amended]
0
52. In Sec. 127.1409, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1501 [Amended]
0
53. In Sec. 127.1501(a), delete the word ``existing.''
Sec. 127.1503 [Amended]
0
54. In Sec. 127.1503, after the text ``NFPA 10'', add the text
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1511 [Amended]
0
55. In Sec. 127.1511, remove the text ``ASTM F 1121'' and add, in its
place, the text ``ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019)''.
Sec. 127.1601 [Amended]
0
56. In Sec. 127.1601 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1603 [Amended]
0
57. In Sec. 127.1603 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1605 [Amended]
0
58. In Sec. 127.1605 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Dated: January 24, 2022.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-01888 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 2, 2022.
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.