Consumer Price Index Adjustments of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Limit of Liability for Offshore Facilities, 73832-73841 [2014-29093]
Download as PDF
73832
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1.6038D–7T
[Removed]
Par. 17. Section 1.6038D–7T is
removed.
■ Par. 18. Section 1.6038D–8 is added
to read as follows:
■
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 1.6038D–8
disclose.
Penalties for failure to
(a) In general. If a specified person
fails to file a Form 8938, ‘‘Statement of
Specified Foreign Financial Assets,’’
that includes the information required
by section 6038D(c) and § 1.6038D–4
with respect to any taxable year at the
time and in the manner described in
section 6038D(a) and § 1.6038D–2, a
penalty of $10,000 will apply to that
specified person.
(b) Married specified individuals
filing a joint annual return. Married
specified individuals who file a joint
annual return and fail to file a required
Form 8938 that includes the information
required by section 6038D(c) and
§ 1.6038D–4 with respect to any taxable
year at the time and in the manner
described in section 6038D(a) and
§ 1.6038D–2 are subject to penalties
under this section as if the married
specified individuals are a single
specified individual. The liability of
married specified individuals who file a
joint annual return with respect to any
penalties under this section is joint and
several.
(c) Increase in penalty. If any failure
to comply with the applicable reporting
requirement of section 6038D and the
regulations continues for more than 90
days after the day on which the
Commissioner or his delegate mails a
notice of the failure to the specified
person required to file the Form 8938,
the specified person is required to pay
an additional penalty of $10,000 for
each 30-day period (or fraction thereof)
during which the failure continues after
the 90-day period has expired. The
additional penalty imposed by section
6038D(d)(2) and this paragraph (c) is
limited to a maximum of $50,000 for
each such failure.
(d) Presumption of aggregate value.
For the purpose of assessing penalties
imposed under section 6038D(d), if the
Commissioner or his delegate
determines that a specified person has
an interest in one or more specified
foreign financial assets and the specified
person does not provide sufficient
information to demonstrate the
aggregate value of the assets upon
request by the Commissioner or his
delegate, then the aggregate value of the
assets is treated as being in excess of the
applicable reporting threshold set forth
in § 1.6038D–2(a).
(e) Reasonable cause exception—(1)
In general. If the failure to report the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
information required in section
6038D(c) and § 1.6038D–4 is shown to
be due to reasonable cause and not due
to willful neglect, no penalty will be
imposed under section 6038D(d) or this
section.
(2) Affirmative showing required. In
order to show that the failure to report
the information required in section
6038D(c) and § 1.6038D–4 is due to
reasonable cause and not due to willful
neglect for purposes of section 6038D(g)
and this section, the specified person
must make an affirmative showing of all
the facts alleged as reasonable cause for
the failure to disclose.
(3) Facts and circumstances taken
into account. The determination of
whether a failure to disclose a specified
foreign financial asset on Form 8938
was due to reasonable cause and not
due to willful neglect is made on a caseby-case basis, taking into account all
pertinent facts and circumstances. The
fact that a foreign jurisdiction would
impose a civil or criminal penalty on
the specified person (or any other
person) for disclosing the required
information is not reasonable cause.
(f) Penalties for underpayments
attributable to undisclosed foreign
financial assets—(1) Accuracy-related
penalty. For application of the accuracyrelated penalty in the case of any
portion of an underpayment attributable
to any undisclosed foreign financial
asset understatement, see section
6662(j).
(2) Criminal penalties. In addition to
other penalties, failure to comply with
the reporting requirements of section
6038D and the regulations, or any
underpayment related to such failure,
may result in criminal penalties under
sections 7201, 7203, 7206, et seq., or
other provisions of Federal law.
(g) Effective/applicability dates. This
section applies to taxable years ending
after December 19, 2011. Taxpayers may
elect to apply the rules of this section
to taxable years ending prior to
December 19, 2011.
§ 1.6038D–8T
[Removed]
Par. 19. Section 1.6038D–8T is
removed.
■
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: December 4, 2014.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2014–29125 Filed 12–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
30 CFR Part 553
[Docket ID: BOEM–2012–0076]
RIN 1010–AD87
Consumer Price Index Adjustments of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Limit of
Liability for Offshore Facilities
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), Interior.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Final rule.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA) establishes a comprehensive
regime for addressing the consequences
of oil spills, ranging from spill response
to compensation for damages to injured
parties. Other than deepwater ports
subject to the Deepwater Port Act of
1974, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) is authorized to
adjust the limit of liability in OPA for
offshore facilities, including pipelines.
This rule amends BOEM’s regulations to
add to the regulations on Oil Spill
Financial Responsibility (OSFR) for
offshore facilities in order to increase
the limit of liability for damages caused
by the responsible party for an offshore
facility from which oil is discharged, or
which poses the substantial threat of an
oil discharge, as described in OPA. This
rule adjusts the limit of liability to
reflect the significant increase in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) that has
taken place since 1990. It also
establishes a methodology for BOEM to
use to periodically adjust the OPA
offshore facility limit of liability for
inflation. BOEM is hereby increasing the
limit of liability for damages under OPA
from $75 million to $133.65 million.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective
January 12, 2015.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Meffert, Office of Policy,
Regulations and Analysis (OPRA),
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Department of the Interior, at 381 Elden
Street, MS–4050 Herndon, Virginia
20170–4817 at (703) 787–1610, or email
at peter.meffert@boem.gov. Questions
related to the limit of liability or the
adjustment process should be directed
to Dr. Marshall Rose, Chief, Economics
Division, Office of Strategic Resources,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, at
381 Elden Street, MS–4050 Herndon,
Virginia 20170–4817 at (703) 787–1538,
or email at marshall.rose@boem.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Introduction
OPA requires inflation adjustments to
the offshore facility limit of liability not
less than every three years to reflect
significant increases in the CPI. 33
U.S.C. 2704(d)(4). This requirement is to
preserve the deterrent effect and
‘‘polluter pays’’ principle embodied in
the OPA Title I liability and
compensation provisions.
On February 24, 2014, BOEM
published a proposed rule to increase
the OPA offshore facility limit of
liability to $133.65 million and establish
the methodology for future inflation
adjustments (79 FR 10056). The
rulemaking comment period initially
closed on March 26, 2014. Various
groups requested additional time to
review and analyze the implications of
this proposed rule and BOEM extended
the comment period by an additional 30
days (79 FR 15275) which closed on
April 25, 2014.
Of the public comments received, all
were generally supportive of the
proposed rule. Also, one offered an
alternative CPI adjustment. BOEM has
posted all comments received in the
docket [BOEM–2012–0076] for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Background
In general, under Title I of OPA, the
responsible parties for any vessel or
facility, including any offshore facility
that discharges or poses a substantial
threat of discharge of oil into or upon
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines,
or the exclusive economic zone, are
liable for the OPA removal costs and
damages that result from such incident
(as specified in 33 U.S.C. 2702(a) and
(b)). Under 33 U.S.C. 2704(a), however,
the total liability of the responsible
parties is limited (with certain
exceptions specified in 33 U.S.C.
2704(c)). In instances when the OPA
liability limit applies, the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) is
available to compensate claimants for
damages in excess of the liability limit
and to reimburse responsible parties for
damages that they pay for that are in
excess of the liability limit, as provided
in 33 U.S.C. 2708, 2712(a)(4), and 2713.
The OPA at 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(3)
provides that responsible parties for an
offshore facility incident are liable for
‘‘the total of all removal costs plus
$75,000,000.’’ The $75 million limit of
liability only applies to damages
covered by OPA.
To prevent the real value of the
amount of liability authorized by OPA
from declining over time as a result of
inflation, and shifting the financial risk
of oil spill incidents to the OSLTF, OPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
(33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4), requires that the
President adjust the limit of liability’’
not less than every three years,’’ by
regulation, to reflect significant
increases in the CPI. This mandate has
been in place since 1990.
Executive Order 12777, as amended,
delegates the implementation of the
President’s OPA limit of liability
inflation adjustment authority, dividing
the responsibility among several Federal
agencies. Among those delegations,
section 4 of Executive Order 12777 vests
the Secretary of the Interior (DOI) with
authority to adjust the limit of liability
for ‘‘offshore facilities, including
associated pipelines, other than
deepwater ports subject to the
[Deepwater Port Act of 1974]’’ for
inflation. Under Secretarial Order 3299,
BOEM exercises this authority on behalf
of DOI. In addition, section 4 of
Executive Order 12777, as amended and
in relevant part, vests in the Secretary
of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating the President’s
authority to adjust for inflation the OPA
limits of liability for vessels and
deepwater ports (including associated
pipelines), and the statutory limit of
liability for onshore facilities. This
authority has been redelegated by the
Secretary of Homeland Security to the
Coast Guard.
Regulatory History
On July 1, 2009, following substantial
coordination with DOI, the
Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Transportation to
achieve consistent approaches to the
inflation adjustment mandate, the Coast
Guard published an Interim Final Rule
With Request For Comments (IFR) (74
FR 31357), implementing the first set of
regulatory inflation adjustments to the
limits of liability for vessels and
deepwater ports, and establishing the
methodology the Coast Guard will use
for future inflation adjustments to the
limits of liability for its delegated source
categories. (See 33 CFR 138.240. See
also, Notice of Final Rulemaking, 73 FR
54997 (September 24, 2008), and Final
Rule, 75 FR 750 (January 6, 2010)).
As described in the preamble to the
Coast Guard’s IFR, DOI and other
agencies with delegated authority for
adjusting the OPA liability limits agreed
to follow the Coast Guard’s inflation
adjustment methodology. BOEM has
coordinated with the Coast Guard on the
inflation adjustments to the OPA
liability limit in this rulemaking.
BOEM published its proposed rule to
increase the OPA offshore facility limit
of liability on February 24, 2014 (79 FR
10056). The comment period closed on
April 25, 2014. This final rule increases
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73833
the offshore facility limit of liability for
OPA damages to $133.65 million and
establishes the methodology for future
inflation adjustments, which generally
follows the Coast Guard’s approach.
Offshore Facility Limit of Liability
This rule implements the first
mandated adjustment, under 33 U.S.C.
2704(d)(4), to the OPA limit of liability
for damages for offshore facilities to
reflect significant increases in the CPI.
This rule also establishes a methodology
for making inflation adjustments to the
OPA limit of liability for offshore
facilities. To ensure maximum
consistency in promulgating rules for
CPI adjustments to the OPA limit of
liability, the approach used by BOEM
follows, in most respects, the inflation
adjustment approach used by the Coast
Guard in its 2009 CPI rulemaking that
adjusted the limits of liability for vessels
and deepwater ports. That approach,
found at 33 CFR part 138, subpart B,
went through a full notice and comment
rulemaking and received no adverse
comments.
Offshore facilities are unique among
the vessels and facilities covered under
OPA. The OPA, at 33 U.S.C. 2704(a),
assigns unlimited liability to the
responsible parties for removal costs
resulting from an offshore facility oil
spill incident, and only limits their
liability for the damages that result from
such a spill and that are covered by
OPA. This rulemaking adjusts the
offshore facility limit of liability for
OPA damages to $133.65 million. Under
OPA, the responsible parties’ liability
for removal costs resulting from an
offshore facility oil spill incident
remains unlimited.
Oil Spill Financial Responsibility
Requirements Are Not Affected by This
Rulemaking
This rulemaking does not affect the
level of oil spill financial responsibility
(OSFR) coverage (found in 33 U.S.C.
2716(c), and 30 CFR 553.13) that
responsible parties must demonstrate
for covered offshore facilities (COFs)
under subparts B through E in the
regulations at 30 CFR part 553.
The OPA offshore facility limit of
liability applies to more facilities than
are covered by the OSFR requirement.
The limit of liability for offshore
facilities applies to all offshore facilities
(other than deepwater ports), while
OSFR coverage is required only for
offshore facilities (other than deepwater
ports) located seaward of the coastline,
or in any portion of a bay connected to
the sea generally, with a worst case oil
discharge potential of more than 1,000
barrels and meeting other specific
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
73834
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
criteria in the definition of COF found
in 30 CFR 553.3.
The OSFR coverage levels are
specified at 33 U.S.C. 2716 and are not
tied to the offshore facility limit of
liability and, therefore, are not affected
by the inflation adjustments required
under OPA at 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4). The
OSFR coverage provisions of OPA
establish minimum and maximum
coverage amounts for any activity
involving a COF. The OSFR coverage
amounts are found in OPA at 33 U.S.C.
2716(c) and in the regulations at 30 CFR
553.13.
Unlike the evidence of financial
responsibility requirements applicable
to vessels and deepwater ports, which
are administered by the Coast Guard
and are directly tied to the applicable
CPI-adjusted limits of liability, OSFR
coverage requirements are not directly
tied to, and their levels do not
automatically increase with changes in,
the offshore facility limit of liability.
OPA does not authorize an OSFR
increase based solely on an increase in
the limit of liability for offshore
facilities occasioned by CPI
adjustments. Rather, as stated in 33
U.S.C. 2716(c)(1)(C), any adjustment to
the required OSFR coverage amount
must be separately ‘‘justified based on
the relative operational, environmental,
human health, and other risks posed by
the quantity or quality of oil that is
explored for, drilled for, produced, or
transported by the responsible party
. . . .’’
BOEM specifically requested
comments on any potential OSFR
insurance underwriter premium
increases. We received no comments
related to OSFR insurance premiums
during the proposed rule comment
period.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Additional Regulatory Changes in 30
CFR Part 553
Section 553.1 of this rule, consistent
with the proposed rule, expands the
purpose section to include adjusting the
limit of liability. In section 553.3, the
final rule also adds, consistent with the
proposed rule, the following three new
definitions to facilitate the
implementation of the inflation
adjustment process: Annual CPI–U,
Current Period, and Previous Period. It
also adds a new definition for
Responsible Party, in the context of
Subpart G.
Discussion of This Rule
I. Explanation of the CPI Adjustment to
the Offshore Facility Limit of Liability
for Damages
This rule implements the first
adjustment, mandated by 33 U.S.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
2704(d)(4), to the OPA limit of liability
for damages caused by the responsible
party for a facility from which oil is
discharged, or which poses the
substantial threat of a discharge from
offshore facilities other than deepwater
ports to reflect significant increases in
the CPI. This rule also establishes the
methodology that BOEM will use to
make periodic CPI adjustments to the
OPA offshore facility limit of liability
for damages. These provisions are
encompassed in a new 30 CFR part 553
subpart G.
1. How will BOEM calculate CPI
adjustments to the limit of liability for
offshore facilities?
BOEM will calculate the new limit of
liability for the offshore facility source
category using the following formula:
New limit of liability = Previous limit of
liability + (Previous limit of liability
multiplied by the decimal equivalent of
the percent change in the CPI from the
year the previous limit of liability was
established, or last adjusted by statute or
regulation, whichever is later, to the
present year), then rounded to the
closest $100.
2. Which CPI will BOEM use?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
publishes a variety of inflation indices,
including the ‘‘Consumer Price Index—
All Urban Consumers, Not Seasonally
Adjusted, U.S. City Average, All Items,
1982–84 = 100,’’ also known as ‘‘CPI–
U,’’ for both monthly and annual
periods. Consistent with the Coast
Guard regulations at 33 CFR 138.240,
BOEM will use CPI–U values, which
may be viewed on the BLS Web site at:
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifiles/
cpiai.txt. For consistency with the Coast
Guard’s limits of liability CPI
adjustment rule, BOEM will use the
annual period CPI–U (hereinafter the
‘‘Annual CPI–U’’), rather than the
monthly period CPI–U.
3. How will BOEM calculate the percent
change in the Annual CPI–U?
Consistent with the Coast Guard’s
inflation adjustment methodology,
BOEM will calculate the percent change
in the Annual CPI–U using the BLS
escalation formula described in Fact
Sheet 00–1, U.S. Department of Labor
Program Highlights, ‘‘How to Use the
Consumer Price Index for Escalation,’’
September 2000. This formula provides
that: Percent change in the Annual CPI–
U = [(Annual CPI–U for Current
Period—Annual CPI–U for Previous
Period) ÷ Annual CPI–U for Previous
Period] × 100. Fact Sheet 00–1 is
available from the BLS online at https://
www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi1998d.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4. Which Annual CPI–U ‘‘Previous
Period’’ and ‘‘Current Period’’ will
BOEM use for its first inflation
adjustment to the offshore facility limit
of liability?
To maintain the real value of the
amount of liability authorized by OPA
for damages, as contemplated in the
original OPA mandate that directed the
limit of liability be adjusted for the CPI,
BOEM will use a ‘‘Previous Period’’ of
1990, the year OPA was enacted. For the
‘‘Current Period,’’ BOEM will use the
most recently published Annual CPI–U
(see 30 CFR 553.703(a)). The latter is
consistent with the Coast Guard’s OPA
limits of liability rule at 33 CFR 138.240
for vessels and deep water ports.
For the calculations in this rule,
BOEM has used the 2013 Annual CPI–
U, published on January 16, 2014.
Future updates will proceed on a 3-year
schedule, as provided in 30 CFR
553.703.
5. How has BOEM calculated the
adjustment to the limit of liability and
what is the new limit?
The following illustrates how BOEM
will apply the BLS escalation formula to
calculate the decimal equivalent of the
percent change in the Annual CPI–U to
adjust the limit of liability for offshore
facilities. The Annual CPI–U (index
base period (1982–84 = 100)) for Current
Period (2013): 232.957 ¥ Annual CPI–
U for Previous Period (1990): 130.7 = an
index point change: 102.257 ÷ Annual
CPI–U for Previous Period: 130.7 =
0.782; result multiplied by 100: 0.782 ×
100 = percent change in the Annual
CPI–U of 78.2 percent. Note that the
cumulative percent change value is
rounded to one decimal place as
provided in § 553.703.
The ‘‘Current Period’’ value for this
methodology is the Annual CPI–U for
the previous calendar year, due to the
BLS Annual CPI–U publication
schedule.
Applying these values, this final rule
adjusts the statutory offshore facility
limit of liability for OPA damages of $75
million by the 78.2 percent increase in
the Consumer Price Index Annual (CPI–
U) that has taken place since 1990, to
$133,650,000.
6. How will BOEM calculate the percent
change for subsequent inflation
adjustments to the OPA limit of liability
for offshore facilities?
This rule establishes the adjustment
methodology BOEM will use for
subsequent CPI adjustments to the OPA
limit of liability for offshore facilities.
Key features for the future inflation
adjustments to the limit of liability
include:
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
• BOEM plans to publish, through a
final rule in the Federal Register, the
inflation adjustments to the limit of
liability for offshore facilities every
three years, counting from 2014 with
this rulemaking, provided that the
threshold for a significant increase in
the Annual CPI–U is met. A three
percent or more change constitutes the
significant increase threshold. The
current adjustment uses the 2013
Annual CPI–U for the ‘‘Current Period.’’
• BOEM has discretion to adjust the
offshore facility limit of liability more
frequently than every three years, by
regulation, to reflect significant
increases in the CPI.
• If Congress amends the limit of
liability for offshore facilities, BOEM
will calculate the Annual CPI–U change
with the ‘‘Previous Period’’ beginning
with the year in which Congress amends
the limit of liability. Otherwise we will
calculate the percent change in the CPI–
U for the next CPI adjustment to the
offshore facility limit using the 2013
Annual CPI–U (the ‘‘Current Period’’ for
today’s adjustment to the limit of
liability) as the ‘‘Previous Period’’ value.
• BOEM will evaluate whether the
cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI–U since the last adjustment
has exceeded three percent no later than
2017 (using the 2016 Annual CPI–U as
the ‘‘Current Period’’). If the change is
three percent or greater, BOEM will
publish a final rule in the Federal
Register with the new inflation-adjusted
offshore facility limit of liability. If, by
the end of the three-year period, the
cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI–U is less than three percent,
BOEM will publish a notice in the
Federal Register of no inflation
adjustment to the limit of liability.
• Following a notice of no inflation
adjustment, BOEM will evaluate the
cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI–U annually and adjust the
limit based on the cumulative percent
change in the Annual CPI–U, once the
three-percent threshold is reached. After
this adjustment is made, BOEM will
resume its process of conducting a
review every three years.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
7. How will BOEM provide public notice
for the offshore facility limit of liability
adjustments?
BOEM will publish subsequent CPI or
statutory adjustments to the offshore
facility limit of liability for damages in
a final rule in the Federal Register. A
final rule will provide for timely notice
of the CPI adjustments and will keep the
offshore facility limit of liability amount
current in BOEM regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
II. Additional Changes to 30 CFR Part
553
1. Update to Section 553.1 (What is the
purpose of this part?’’)
Consistent with the proposed rule,
BOEM is making the following changes
to 30 CFR part 553, setting forth the
limit of liability for offshore facilities
under OPA.
2. Definition Changes for Terms Found
at 30 CFR 553.3 (‘‘How are the terms
used in this regulation defined?’’)
BOEM is adding the following
definitions to 30 CFR 553.3: Annual
CPI–U, current period, previous period
and Responsible party for purposes of
Subpart G.
Changes Made Between the Proposed
Rule and This Final Rule
The proposed rule would have
revised the definition of ‘‘responsible
party’’ in the existing regulation at 30
CFR 553.3, which addresses the party’s
responsibilities for COFs under the
OSFR program. While the existing
definition of ‘‘responsible party’’
adequately addresses the needs of the
OSFR program, it does not contemplate
the broader range of facilities that are
covered by the limit of liability for
offshore facilities under OPA at 33
U.S.C. 2704. In the context of OPA
liability, a responsible party’s liability is
not limited to damages or removal costs
associated with a COF. In this final rule,
the new definition of ‘‘responsible
party’’ for the limit of liability for
offshore facilities in subpart G now
makes clear that it also applies to all
offshore facilities, whether the facilities
are COFs (subject to the financial
responsibility requirements of subparts
A through F), or not, while the existing
definition of ‘‘responsible party’’ for
OSFR remains unchanged.
Further, BOEM has removed the
following sentence from the definition
of ‘‘responsible party’’ that appeared in
the notice of proposed rulemaking: ‘‘The
owner of operating rights in a lease is a
responsible party with respect to
facilities that serve or served an area
and depth in which it holds operating
rights, but not with respect to any
facility that only serves parts of the
lease to which it does not hold
operating rights.’’ A lessee of the area in
which the facility is located is a
responsible party under OPA at sec.
2701(32)(C). The definition of
‘‘responsible party’’ in both the
proposed rule and in this final rule
includes lessees as responsible parties.
BOEM’s definition of ‘‘lessee’’ in its
existing regulation at 30 CFR 553.3
(which is not changed by this final rule)
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73835
includes a holder of operating rights
(working interest owner). Therefore,
when read together, the definition of
‘‘responsible party’’ without the
described sentence and the definition of
‘‘lessee’’ hold operating rights owners
responsible, making this sentence
unnecessary. To reinforce this
connection between the definitions,
BOEM has added a phrase in the second
sentence of the definition of
‘‘responsible party for purposes of
Subpart G’’ to expressly state that a
responsible party includes lessees ‘‘as
defined in this subpart.’’
Response to Comments
BOEM published a proposed rule
entitled, ‘‘Consumer Price Index
Adjustments of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 Limit of Liability for Offshore
Facilities’’ in the Federal Register on
February 24, 2014, with a 30 day request
for comment period. The comment
period was extended by an additional
30 days on March 26, 2014. The
comment period ended on April 25,
2014. BOEM received a number of
comment letters from interested
stakeholders, and carefully considered
them prior to finalizing the rulemaking.
Sixteen distinct written comments,
eight from organizations and eight from
individuals, were submitted regarding
the proposed rule. Of the organizations,
BOEM received three comments from
industry/trade associations, one from a
charitable trust, and the four remaining
comments, submitted on behalf of a
total of 17 organizations, were from
environmental organizations. None of
the comments that BOEM received
expressed any opposition to the
proposed increase in the limit of
liability for offshore facilities.
One company, ConocoPhillips,
supported the rule as proposed; while
other industry organizations, the
Independent Petroleum Association of
America and the National Ocean
Industries Association took no position
on the proposed rule. The Pew
Charitable Trust, the Gulf Restoration
Network, the Ocean Conservancy, and
five of the individual commenters
supported the rule as proposed.
The Alaska Wilderness League, the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, the
Citizens’ Coalition to Ban Toxic
Dispersants, Clean Ocean Action,
Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the
Earth, Greenpeace, Hands Across the
Sand, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Northern Alaska
Environmental Center, Oasis Earth,
Ocean Conservation Research, Pacific
Environment, and the Surfrider
Foundation also supported the proposed
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
73836
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
increase, but argued that the amount of
increase is too small. The CBD
suggested an alternative limit of
between $20 and $50 billion.
With one exception, all of the
comments expressed support for the
proposed inflation index and
methodology, which BOEM proposed to
use to adjust the limit of liability on an
ongoing basis. BOEM received a
comment suggesting the Chained CPI–U
(C–CPI–U) be used instead of the
standard CPI–U for adjusting the
Comment received
BOEM response
Commenter Tupper suggested that BOEM should use a chained Consumer Price Index (C–CPI–U) instead of the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U).
Commenter Tupper also suggested that the update methodology
should include a mechanism for adjusting the limit for offshore facilities downward, as well as upward, to account for potential deflation,
as well as inflation.
The CBD and its co-respondents suggested that BOEM ‘‘should also
increase the financial responsibility requirements to ensure that companies in fact have the capability to meet the increased liability requirements’’.
Commenter Dobkin suggested that the state and federal tax deductibility of payments made in connection with an oil spill be eliminated.
Commenter Commeaux suggested that an automatic stop-work order
be issued in the event of a spill.
Commenter Commeaux also suggested that criminal penalties be implemented against those responsible for any spill.
Commenter Commeaux also implied that new or increased civil penalties be considered against those responsible for any spill.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commenter Donovan suggested that BOEM redefine the meaning of
the word ‘‘expenditure’’ as used in the context of any oil spill. ‘‘. . .
the proper definition of the term ‘‘expenditure,’’ under the OSLTF,
means an expenditure that is not reimbursed by the responsible
party.’’ Mr. Donovan explains why he believes this change would be
appropriate: ‘‘The advantage of defining an expenditure, under the
OSLTF, as ‘‘an expenditure that is not reimbursed by the responsible
party,’’ is twofold: (a) It eliminates, without the need to pass retroactive legislation, the $1 billion cap which may be paid from the
OSLTF with respect to any single incident and allows the OSLTF to
maintain a balance of at least $1 billion for the purpose of paying
claims for damages resulting from other oil spill incidents. As the
OSLTF pool of $1 billion is depleted by payments made to oil spill
claimants, it is replenished, by virtue of subrogation, by reimbursements made to the OSLTF by the responsible party; and (b) It ensures that the cost of a catastrophic oil spill incident shall be borne
by the responsible party, not the federal taxpayer’’.
The CPI–U measures prices of a base
basket, which uses a single expenditure
base period to compute the price change
over time; in contrast, the C–CPI–U,
which the commenter suggested, reflects
the effect of any substitutions
consumers make across item categories
in response to relative price changes.
BOEM is retaining the CPI–U for several
reasons.
(a) The adjustment of the limit of
liability addresses inflation since 1990
when the current offshore facility limit
was established. The C–CPI–U was first
published by Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) in 2002, with a historical series
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
offshore facility limit of liability. The
commenter suggested that the C–CPI–U
is a ‘‘closer approximation to a cost-ofliving index’’ than the CPI–U.
Responses to those comments are
contained in the table below.
That issue is addressed in detail at the end of this Section.
BOEM’s authority to increase the financial responsibility requirements
is limited to the circumstances and amount set forth in 33 U.S.C.
2716(c)(1)(C).
The Oil Pollution Act does not have any provision to allow for downward revisions in the limits of liability for deflation. In addition to the
statutory restriction, BOEM believes that the limit of liability is already
potentially too low and that any downward adjustment would conflict
with the goals of the statute. For these reasons, the adjustment formula is not revised to allow for downward adjustments in the limit of
liability amount.
BOEM’s authority to increase the financial responsibility requirements
is limited to the circumstances and amount set forth in 33 U.S.C.
2716(c)(1)(C).
Laws related to taxation are outside the scope of this rule and not within BOEM’s authority to regulate.
Stop work orders are outside the scope of this rule.
Authority to invoke criminal penalties against those responsible for oil
spills is outside the scope of this rule and not within BOEM or the
DOI’s authority to regulate.
Authority to impose or increase civil penalties against those responsible for oil spills is outside the scope of this rule and not within
BOEM or the DOI’s authority to regulate.
Interpreting the meaning of the word ‘‘expenditure,’’ as used in 26
U.S.C. 9509(c) (per incident cap on Oil Spill Liability Trust Funds
(OSLTF) expenditures), is outside the scope of this rule and not
within BOEM or the DOI’s authority to regulate.
dating back to 1999. The officially
published C–CPI–U series from BLS
does not extend back to 1990. Although
it may be possible to join the published
C–CPI–U with the older, non-chained
CPI–U series or with data not included
in the officially published C–CPI–U,
such an adjustment would not represent
an official BLS statistical series.
Therefore, to ensure a consistent
adjustment to reflect inflation, this rule
uses the CPI–U.
(b) The CPI–U was the primary CPI
measure at the time of the Delaware
River Protection Act (DRPA) OPA
amendments in 2006 (Pub. L. 109–241).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The DRPA amendments maintained the
requirement of three year adjustments to
‘‘reflect significant increases in the
Consumer price Index.’’ In addition, the
C–CPI–U was available when DRPA
amended the limits of liability
adjustment provision of OPA, 33 U.S.C.
2704(d)(4), and Congress could have,
but did not, require its use.
(c) The CPI–U is the most frequently
used escalation variable in private
sector collective bargaining agreements,
rental contracts, and insurance policies
with automatic inflation protection.
(d) Also, the U.S. Coast Guard uses
the CPI–U for the OPA limit of liability
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
adjustments under its jurisdiction.
Based on this and the three previous
considerations, BOEM has concluded
that the C–CPI–U does not provide a
compelling advantage for more accurate
price measurements of changes in
potential liabilities under this
rulemaking.
Summary of Changes to 30 CFR Part
553 by Subpart
Amendments to Subpart A
Changes to sections 553.1 and 553.3,
as described above.
Amendments to Subpart B
None.
Amendments to Subpart C
None.
Amendments to Subpart D
None.
Amendments to Subpart E
None.
Amendments to Subpart F
None.
Addition of New Subpart G
New Subpart, as described above.
Legal and Regulatory Analyses
Presidential Executive Orders
E.O. 12630—Takings Implication
Assessment
According to Executive Order 12630,
this final rule does not have significant
takings implications. The rulemaking is
not a governmental action capable of
interfering with constitutionally
protected property rights. A Takings
Implication Assessment is not required.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
E.O. 12866—Regulatory Planning and
Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking
under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866.
BOEM does not believe this rulemaking
constitutes a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under E.O. 12866 based on the
following:
(1) These provisions simply adjust the
offshore facility limit of liability for
damages by the CPI. This rule will likely
not have an annual effect of $100
million or more on the economy. It will
likely also not adversely affect in a
material way the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities.
The new offshore facility limit of
liability increases the pollution liability
of offshore facility responsible parties
and may result in increased costs if
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
damages exceed $75 million. If damages
from an offshore facility oil spill exceed
$75 million, the higher limit of liability
($133.65 million) in this rule will
impose greater nominal costs on the
responsible parties. In constant 1990
dollars, the limit of liability for offshore
facilities implemented by this final rule
is the same as established in OPA and
preserves the ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle.
The infrequent occurrence of large oil
spills from offshore facilities suggests
that the compliance costs from this
increase in the limit of liability are
likely to be immaterial to the operating
costs for offshore facility responsible
parties over time.
(2) This final rule would not create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency. BOEM has
coordinated with the Coast Guard and
the Department of Justice on this
rulemaking.
(3) This final rule would not alter the
budgetary effects of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
or obligations of their recipients.
(4) This final rule does not raise any
novel legal or policy issues. OPA
requires the offshore facility limit of
liability to be adjusted for inflation not
less than every three years to reflect
significant increases in the CPI.
E.O. 12988—Civil Justice Reform
This final rule complies with the
requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be
reviewed to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and be written to minimize
litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2)
requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
E.O. 13045—Protection of Children
From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks
BOEM has analyzed this final rule
under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This final rule
is not an economically significant rule
and an analysis of environmental health
risks is therefore not required.
Regardless, this is an administrative rule
and it does not create any
environmental risk to health or any risk
to safety that may disproportionately
affect children.
E.O. 13132—Federalism
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this
final rule does not have federalism
implications. This final rule does not
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73837
have substantial direct effects on the
relationship between the Federal and
State governments. This final rule will
not affect the role of State and local
governments with respect to their
offshore facility activities. A Federalism
Assessment is not required.
E.O. 13175—Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This final rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, because it
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. Under
the criteria in E.O. 13175, we evaluated
this final rule and determined that it has
no substantial direct effects on federally
recognized Indian tribes.
E.O. 13211—Effects on the Nation’s
Energy Supply
BOEM has analyzed this final rule
under E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.’’
BOEM has determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under that
order. This final rule is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under E.O.
13211.
E.O. 13563—Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
E.O. 13563 requires that our
regulatory system protect public health,
welfare, safety, and our environment
while promoting economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation. It must be based on the best
available science. It must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. It must promote
predictability and reduce uncertainty. It
must identify and use the best, most
innovative and least burdensome tools
for achieving regulatory ends. It must
take into account benefits and costs,
both quantitative and qualitative. It
must ensure that regulations are
accessible, consistent, written in plain
language, and easy to understand. It
must measure, and seek to improve, the
actual results of regulatory
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
73838
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
This E.O. is supplemental to and
reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing contemporary
regulatory review that were established
in E.O. 12866. As stated in that E.O.,
and to the extent permitted by law, each
agency must, among other things: (1)
Propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive benefits; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information with which choices can be
made by the public.
The increased offshore facility limit of
liability for damages in this rulemaking
is required by statute (OPA). This
rulemaking does not amend the OSFR
requirements in 30 CFR part 553. BOEM
does not believe that OSFR insurance
premiums will be significantly impacted
by this rulemaking. BOEM solicited
comments on that issue; however, no
comments were received. The limit of
liability increase is necessary to ensure
that the deterrent effect and the
‘‘polluter pays’’ principle embodied in
OPA’s liability provisions are preserved.
Clarity of this Regulation
E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(2)), E.O.
12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and, E.O.
13563 (section 1(a)), and the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, require that every agency write its
rules in plain language. This means that,
wherever possible, each rule must: (a)
Have a logical organization; (b) use the
active voice to address readers directly;
(c) use common, everyday words, and
clear language, rather than jargon; (d)
use short sections and sentences; and (e)
maximize the use of lists and tables.
With the issuance of the proposed
rule, BOEM requested that any
commenters that believed that it has not
met these requirements should send
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
their comments to Peter Meffert at
Peter.Meffert@boem.gov. To better help
us revise the final rule, BOEM requested
that your comments be as specific as
possible. For example, BOEM asked
whether any of the sections or the
paragraphs were written unclearly,
which sections or sentences were too
long, what additional sections, lists or
tables would be useful, etc. No
comments were received on this topic.
For that reason, BOEM has concluded
that no changes in the clarity and
organization of the rule are necessary.
Public Availability of Comments
All written comments that have been
received in the docket [BOEM–2012–
0076] for this rulemaking, including
names and addresses of respondents,
have been posted at
www.regulations.gov.
Statutes
Data Quality Act
In developing this final rule, BOEM
did not conduct or use a study,
experiment, or survey requiring peer
review under the Data Quality Act (Pub.
L. 106–554, app. C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763,
2763A–153 to 154).
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969
This final rule does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment. BOEM has analyzed this
final rule under the criteria of NEPA
and DOI’s regulations implementing
NEPA. This final rule meets the criteria
set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a
Departmental Categorical Exclusion in
that this final rule is ‘‘. . . of an
administrative, financial, legal,
technical, or procedural nature . . .’’
BOEM also has analyzed this final rule
to determine if it involves any of the
extraordinary circumstances that would
require an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement, as
set forth in 43 CFR 46.215, and
concluded that this final rule would not
involve any extraordinary
circumstances.
Further, this final rule involves
congressionally mandated regulations
and there is no discretion in the agency
to be informed by NEPA analysis.
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
The NTTAA, Public Law 104–113 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 final rule does not require the
use of any technical specifications or
standards and, therefore, the
requirement to follow voluntary
consensus standards does not apply to
this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995
This rule does not contain new
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has
reviewed and approved the information
collection requirements associated with
30 CFR 553 and assigned OMB Control
Number 1010–0106, which expires
December 31, 2016. BOEM may not
conduct or sponsor and you are not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
DOI certifies that this final rule would
not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The changes in this final rule will
potentially affect all oil and gas lessees,
operators of leases, holders or rights of
use and easement, and pipeline right-ofway holders in the OCS and in State
waters. The changes further may affect
any operators of oil and gas facilities in
other offshore locations, such as
navigable rivers and lakes; however, the
level of damages for inland water
offshore facility incidents have
historically been far below the statutory
limit and are not likely to exceed the
statutory limit of liability. Available
information indicates that the changes
would mainly affect about 170 active
operators and owners on the OCS and
State offshore waters. These
approximately 170 operators and
owners provide OSFR coverage for more
than 7,800 OCS Right-of-Use and
Easement (RUE) facilities, pipeline
Rights-of-Way (ROWs), and leases (both
with and without permanent facilities).
Small lessees, ROW or RUE holders or
operators that operate under this final
rule primarily fall under the Small
Business Administration’s North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes 211111, Crude
Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction,
213111, Drilling Oil and Gas Wells and
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
237120, Oil and Gas Pipeline and
Related Structures. For these NAICS
code classifications, a small company is
one with fewer than 500 employees.
Based on these criteria, an estimated
two-thirds of these companies are
considered small. This final rule,
therefore, will affect a substantial
number of small entities, but it would
not have a significant economic effect
on those entities, since the OSFR
thresholds are not being adjusted.
This final rule could impact certain
OCS and other offshore operators and
owners through negligibly higher
insurance premiums. Most small
entities do not self-insure, but rather
share ownership with larger companies
that provide them with OSFR coverage
or else they obtain insurance for their
OSFR obligations in the private
marketplace. BOEM does not expect the
78.2 percent increase in the limit of
liability to cause the OSFR insurance
premiums to materially increase
because of the very low anticipated
frequency of claims and because each
guarantor’s or insurer’s exposure is
limited to the OSFR prescribed coverage
limit of $35 million or $150 million.
Any potential increased insurance
premium should be relatively
insignificant as compared to the
considerable operational costs and
liability risks associated with activities
on the OCS. This is true for even the
smallest of OCS and other offshore
operators and owners. BOEM welcomed
specific comments on any expected or
potential corresponding OSFR premium
increases that may occur because of the
increased limit of liability or for some
related reason. No such comments were
received. For this reason, BOEM
believes that its original assessment was
correct that no such OSFR premium
increases will necessarily occur as a
result of this rulemaking.
The Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were
established to receive comments from
small businesses about Federal agency
enforcement actions. The Ombudsman
will annually rate an agency’s
responsiveness to their comments and
evaluate the enforcement activities. If
you wish to comment on the actions of
BOEM, call 1–888–734–3247. You may
comment to the Small Business
Administration without fear of
retaliation. Allegations of
discrimination/retaliation filed with the
Small Business Administration will be
investigated for appropriate action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Pursuant to section 213(a) of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
BOEM wants to assist small entities in
understanding this final rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects and
participate in the rulemaking. If you
believe that this final rule will affect
your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
Marshall Rose, of the BOEM Economics
Division, at the address in the Technical
Information Section listed above.
This final rule is not a major rule
under the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2)). This rule will not:
• Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more;
• cause a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions; or,
• have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. The
requirements of this rule will apply to
all entities having oil and gas operations
offshore, including in State waters.
Based on the maximum potential
worst case oil spill discharge,
approximately 110 of the 170 companies
with covered offshore facilities are
required to demonstrate OSFR coverage
of $70 million or less (see 30 CFR
553.13). These 110 companies will
likely not experience any insurance
premium increases because of the
increased limit of liability, since the
level of required OSFR is not impacted
by the offshore limit of liability
adjustment to $133.65 million. Another
five companies must demonstrate OSFR
coverage of $105 million. BOEM
believes that these companies are
unlikely to experience increased
insurance premiums resulting from the
increased offshore facility limit of
liability, just as the few companies
demonstrating the $150 million in OSFR
coverage that are not self-insured or
guaranteed are unlikely to be affected by
this rule.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73839
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small businesses. If
you wish to comment on actions by
employees of BOEM, call 1–888–REG–
FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This final rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector,
of more than $100 million per year. The
final rule will not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. A
statement containing the information
required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not
required.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 553
Administrative practice and
procedure, Continental shelf, Economic
analysis, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental protection,
Financial responsibility, Government
contracts, Intergovernmental relations,
Investigations, OCS, Oil and gas
exploration, Oil pollution, Liability,
Limit of liability, Penalties, Pipelines,
Public lands—mineral resources, Public
lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surety
bonds, Treasury securities.
Janice M. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals
Management.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management amends 30 CFR part 553 as
follows:
PART 553—OIL SPILL FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFSHORE
FACILITIES
1. Revise the authority citation for part
553 to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O.
12777, as amended.
■
2. Revise § 553.1 to read as follows:
§ 553.1
What is the purpose of this part?
This part establishes the requirements
for demonstrating Oil Spill Financial
Responsibility for covered offshore
facilities (COF), sets forth the
procedures for claims against COF
guarantors, and sets forth the limit of
liability for offshore facilities, as
adjusted, under Title I of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, as amended, 33
U.S.C. 2701 et seq. (OPA).
■ 3. Amend § 553.3 by:
■ a. Adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ‘‘Annual CPI–U,’’
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
73840
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘Current period,’’ and ‘‘Previous
period;’’
■ b. Revising the definition of
‘‘Responsible party’’ to read as follows:
§ 553.3 How are the terms used in this
regulation defined?
§ 553.3 How are the terms used in this
regulation defined?
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
Annual CPI–U means the annual
‘‘Consumer Price Index-All Urban
Consumers, Not Seasonally Adjusted,
U.S. City Average, All items, 1982 ¥ 84
= 100,’’ published by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
*
*
*
*
*
Current period means the year in
which the Annual CPI–U was most
recently published by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
*
*
*
*
*
Previous period means the year in
which the previous limit of liability was
established, or last adjusted by statute or
regulation, whichever is later.
Responsible party, for purposes of
subparts B through F, has the following
meanings:
(1) For a COF that is a pipeline,
responsible party means any person
owning or operating the pipeline;
(2) For a COF that is not a pipeline,
responsible party means either the
lessee or permittee of the area in which
the COF is located, or the holder of a
right-of-use and easement granted under
applicable State law or the OCSLA (43
U.S.C. 1301–1356) for the area in which
the COF is located (if the holder is a
different person than the lessee or
permittee). A Federal agency, State,
municipality, commission, or political
subdivision of a State, or any interstate
body that as owner transfers possession
and right to use the property to another
person by lease, assignment, or permit
is not a responsible party; and
(3) For an abandoned COF,
responsible party means any person
who would have been a responsible
party for the COF immediately before
abandonment.
Responsible party, for purposes of
subpart G, has the meaning in 33 U.S.C.
2701(32)(C), (E) and (F). This definition
includes, as applicable, lessees as
defined in this subpart, permittees,
right-of-use and easement holders, and
pipeline owners and operators.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Add a new subpart G to part 553
to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
Subpart G—Limit of Liability for
Offshore Facilities
Sec.
553.700 What is the scope of this subpart?
553.701 To which entities does this subpart
apply?
553.702 What limit of liability applies to
my offshore facility?
553.703 What is the procedure for
calculating the limit of liability
adjustment for inflation?
553.704 How will BOEM publish the
offshore facility limit of liability
adjustment?
§ 553.700
subpart?
What is the scope of this
This subpart sets forth the limit of
liability for damages for offshore
facilities under Title I of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (33
U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) (OPA), as adjusted,
under section 1004(d) of OPA (33 U.S.C.
2704(d)). This subpart also sets forth the
method for adjusting the limit of
liability for damages for offshore
facilities for inflation, by regulation,
under section 1004(d) of OPA (33 U.S.C.
2704(d)).
§ 553.701 To which entities does this
subpart apply?
This subpart applies to you if you are
a responsible party for an offshore
facility, other than a deepwater port
under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974
(33 U.S.C. 1501–1524), but including an
offshore pipeline, or an abandoned
offshore facility, including any
abandoned offshore pipeline, unless
your liability is unlimited under OPA
90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(c)).
§ 553.702 What limit of liability applies to
my offshore facility?
Except as provided in 33 U.S.C.
2704(c), the limit of liability under OPA
for a responsible party for any offshore
facility, including any offshore pipeline,
is the total of all removal costs plus
$133.65 million for damages with
respect to each incident.
§ 553.703 What is the procedure for
calculating the limit of liability adjustment
for inflation?
The procedure for calculating limit of
liability adjustments for inflation is as
follows:
(a) Formula for calculating a
cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI–U. BOEM calculates the
cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI–U from the year the limit of
liability was established by statute, or
last adjusted by regulation, whichever is
later (i.e., the Previous Period), to the
year in which the Annual CPI–U is most
recently published (i.e., the Current
Period), using the following formula:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Percent change in the Annual CPI–U =
[(Annual CPI–U for Current Period ¥
Annual CPI–U for Previous Period) ÷
Annual CPI–U for Previous Period] ×
100. This cumulative percent change
value is rounded to one decimal place.
(b) Significance threshold.
(1) A cumulative increase in the
Annual CPI–U equal to three percent or
more constitutes a significant increase
in the Consumer Price Index within the
meaning of 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4).
(2) Not later than every three years
from the year the limit of liability was
last adjusted for inflation, BOEM will
evaluate whether the cumulative
percent change in the Annual CPI–U
since that year has reached a
significance threshold of three percent
or greater.
(3) For any three-year period
evaluated under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section in which the cumulative percent
increase in the Annual CPI–U is less
than three percent, if BOEM has not
issued an inflation adjustment during
that period, BOEM will publish a notice
of no inflation adjustment to the
offshore facility limit of liability for
damages in the Federal Register.
(4) Once the three-percent threshold
is reached, BOEM will increase by final
rule the offshore facility limit of liability
for damages in § 553.702 by an amount
equal to the cumulative percent change
in the Annual CPI–U from the year the
limit was established by statute, or last
adjusted by regulation, whichever is
later. After this adjustment is made,
BOEM will resume its process of
conducting a review every three years.
(5) Nothing in this section will
prevent BOEM, in BOEM’s sole
discretion, from adjusting the offshore
facility limit of liability for damages for
inflation by regulation issued more
frequently than every three years.
(c) Formula for calculating inflation
adjustments. BOEM calculates
adjustments to the offshore facility limit
of liability in 30 CFR 553.702 for
inflation using the following formula:
New limit of liability = Previous limit of
liability + (Previous limit of liability
× the decimal equivalent of the
percent change in the Annual CPI–
U calculated under paragraph (a) of
this section), then rounded to the
closest $100.
§ 553.704 How will BOEM publish the
offshore facility limit of liability adjustment?
BOEM will publish the inflationadjusted limit of liability, and any
statutory amendments to that limit of
liability in the Federal Register, as
amendments to § 553.702. Updates to
the limit of liability under this section
are effective on the 90th day after
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
publication in the Federal Register of
the amendments to § 553.702, unless
otherwise specified by statute (in the
event of a statutory amendment to the
limit of liability), or in the Federal
Register rule amending § 553.702.
[FR Doc. 2014–29093 Filed 12–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
31 CFR Part 210
RIN 1510–AB24
Federal Government Participation in
the Automated Clearing House
Bureau of the Fiscal Service,
Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.
AGENCY:
This document corrects a
technical error that appeared in the July
24, 2014 amendments to our regulation
governing the use of the Automated
Clearing House (ACH) network by
Federal agencies.
DATES: This technical correction is
effective December 12, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian
Macoy, Director, Settlement Services
Division, at (202) 874–6835 or
ian.macoy@fiscal.treasury.gov or Natalie
H. Diana, Senior Counsel, at (202) 874–
6680 or natalie.diana@
fiscal.treasury.gov.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 24, 2014, the Bureau of the
Fiscal Service (Service) published a
final rule in the Federal Register (79 FR
42974) to amend our regulation at 31
CFR part 210 (Part 210) governing the
use of the ACH network by Federal
agencies. Among the revisions to Part
210 that were published in the final rule
were several non-substantive changes to
§ 210.8(b) to reflect the re-numbering of
the NACHA Rules and the updated
citation to the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau’s Regulation E. In
revising § 210.8(b), subparagraphs (1)
and (2) of paragraph (b) were
inadvertently omitted due to a drafting
error.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Description of Correction
This action corrects the omission of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) from
§ 210.8(b). In the section-by-section
analysis of the final rule preamble
published on July 24, 2014, the Service
stated that the changes to § 210.8
consisted of the replacement of specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Dec 11, 2014
Jkt 235001
ACH Rules references to reflect renumbering of the ACH Rules and the
updating of the regulatory citation to
Regulation E to reflect its re-codification
at 12 CFR part 1005. There was no
indication in the section-by-section
analysis or discussion elsewhere in the
preamble of the deletion of
subparagraphs (1) and (2), which have
no relation to the reasons for the
technical revisions to § 210.8, i.e., the
re-numbering of the ACH Rules and the
re-codification of Regulation E.
Similarly, there was no proposal to
make any substantive change to § 210.8
in the preamble or section-by-section
analysis of the Service’s notice of
proposed rulemaking to amend Part 210,
which was published on December 12,
2013 (78 FR 75528). Subparagraphs (1)
and (2) were omitted by error from the
final rule purely due to a drafting error
in which the text of the subparagraphs
was not included in the amendatory
instructions to § 210.8(b).
Procedural Matters
Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an
agency for good cause finds that notice
and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest, and provides a statement of the
reasons for that finding, the agency may
issue a final rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public
comment. The APA also generally
requires that a final rule be effective no
sooner than 30 days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
This 30-day delay in effective date can
be waived, however, if an agency finds
good cause why the effective date
should not be delayed, and the agency
incorporates a statement of the findings
and its reasons in the rule issued.
The Service finds that there is good
cause, and that it would be contrary to
the public interest and unnecessary, to
undertake notice and comment
procedures to make this technical
correction. As discussed above, the
preamble and the section-by-section
analysis to both the notice of proposed
rulemaking and the final rule
amendments correctly refer to and
discuss the substance of the section
affected by this technical correction.
The Service is also waiving the 30-day
delay in effective date for this
correction. We believe that it is in the
public interest to ensure that the
correction be made as expeditiously as
possible to avoid confusion. Therefore,
we find that delaying the effective date
of this correction would be contrary to
the public interest and we find good
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73841
cause to waive the 30-day delay in the
effective date.
This document is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Regulatory Planning and Review.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires
an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute
unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Because no notice of proposed
rulemaking is required, the provisions
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not
apply.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 210
Automated Clearing House, Electronic
funds transfer, Financial institutions,
Fraud, and Incorporation by reference.
Words of Issuance
Accordingly, 31 CFR part 210 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 210—FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PARTICIPATION IN THE AUTOMATED
CLEARING HOUSE
1. The authority citation for part 210
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5525; 12 U.S.C. 391;
31 U.S.C. 321, 3301, 3302, 3321, 3332, 3335,
and 3720.
2. Amend § 210.8 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 210.8
Financial institutions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Liability. Notwithstanding ACH
Rules Subsections 2.4.4, 2.8.4, 4.8.5,
2.9.2, 3.2.2, and 3.13.3, if the Federal
Government sustains a loss as a result
of a financial institution’s failure to
handle an entry in accordance with this
part, the financial institution shall be
liable to the Federal Government for the
loss, up to the amount of the entry,
except as otherwise provided in this
section. A financial institution shall not
be liable to any third party for any loss
or damage resulting directly or
indirectly from an agency’s error or
omission in originating an entry.
Nothing in this section shall affect any
obligation or liability of a financial
institution under Regulation E, 12 CFR
part 1005, or the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act, 12 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.
(1) An ODFI that transmits a debit
entry to an agency without the prior
written or similarly authenticated
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73832-73841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29093]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
30 CFR Part 553
[Docket ID: BOEM-2012-0076]
RIN 1010-AD87
Consumer Price Index Adjustments of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Limit of Liability for Offshore Facilities
AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) establishes a
comprehensive regime for addressing the consequences of oil spills,
ranging from spill response to compensation for damages to injured
parties. Other than deepwater ports subject to the Deepwater Port Act
of 1974, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is authorized to
adjust the limit of liability in OPA for offshore facilities, including
pipelines. This rule amends BOEM's regulations to add to the
regulations on Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR) for offshore
facilities in order to increase the limit of liability for damages
caused by the responsible party for an offshore facility from which oil
is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of an oil
discharge, as described in OPA. This rule adjusts the limit of
liability to reflect the significant increase in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) that has taken place since 1990. It also establishes a
methodology for BOEM to use to periodically adjust the OPA offshore
facility limit of liability for inflation. BOEM is hereby increasing
the limit of liability for damages under OPA from $75 million to
$133.65 million.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 12, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Meffert, Office of Policy,
Regulations and Analysis (OPRA), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Department of the Interior, at 381 Elden Street, MS-4050 Herndon,
Virginia 20170-4817 at (703) 787-1610, or email at
peter.meffert@boem.gov. Questions related to the limit of liability or
the adjustment process should be directed to Dr. Marshall Rose, Chief,
Economics Division, Office of Strategic Resources, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, at 381 Elden Street, MS-4050 Herndon, Virginia
20170-4817 at (703) 787-1538, or email at marshall.rose@boem.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 73833]]
Introduction
OPA requires inflation adjustments to the offshore facility limit
of liability not less than every three years to reflect significant
increases in the CPI. 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4). This requirement is to
preserve the deterrent effect and ``polluter pays'' principle embodied
in the OPA Title I liability and compensation provisions.
On February 24, 2014, BOEM published a proposed rule to increase
the OPA offshore facility limit of liability to $133.65 million and
establish the methodology for future inflation adjustments (79 FR
10056). The rulemaking comment period initially closed on March 26,
2014. Various groups requested additional time to review and analyze
the implications of this proposed rule and BOEM extended the comment
period by an additional 30 days (79 FR 15275) which closed on April 25,
2014.
Of the public comments received, all were generally supportive of
the proposed rule. Also, one offered an alternative CPI adjustment.
BOEM has posted all comments received in the docket [BOEM-2012-0076]
for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.
Background
In general, under Title I of OPA, the responsible parties for any
vessel or facility, including any offshore facility that discharges or
poses a substantial threat of discharge of oil into or upon navigable
waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone, are
liable for the OPA removal costs and damages that result from such
incident (as specified in 33 U.S.C. 2702(a) and (b)). Under 33 U.S.C.
2704(a), however, the total liability of the responsible parties is
limited (with certain exceptions specified in 33 U.S.C. 2704(c)). In
instances when the OPA liability limit applies, the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund (OSLTF) is available to compensate claimants for damages in
excess of the liability limit and to reimburse responsible parties for
damages that they pay for that are in excess of the liability limit, as
provided in 33 U.S.C. 2708, 2712(a)(4), and 2713. The OPA at 33 U.S.C.
2704(a)(3) provides that responsible parties for an offshore facility
incident are liable for ``the total of all removal costs plus
$75,000,000.'' The $75 million limit of liability only applies to
damages covered by OPA.
To prevent the real value of the amount of liability authorized by
OPA from declining over time as a result of inflation, and shifting the
financial risk of oil spill incidents to the OSLTF, OPA (33 U.S.C.
2704(d)(4), requires that the President adjust the limit of liability''
not less than every three years,'' by regulation, to reflect
significant increases in the CPI. This mandate has been in place since
1990.
Executive Order 12777, as amended, delegates the implementation of
the President's OPA limit of liability inflation adjustment authority,
dividing the responsibility among several Federal agencies. Among those
delegations, section 4 of Executive Order 12777 vests the Secretary of
the Interior (DOI) with authority to adjust the limit of liability for
``offshore facilities, including associated pipelines, other than
deepwater ports subject to the [Deepwater Port Act of 1974]'' for
inflation. Under Secretarial Order 3299, BOEM exercises this authority
on behalf of DOI. In addition, section 4 of Executive Order 12777, as
amended and in relevant part, vests in the Secretary of the Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating the President's authority to
adjust for inflation the OPA limits of liability for vessels and
deepwater ports (including associated pipelines), and the statutory
limit of liability for onshore facilities. This authority has been
redelegated by the Secretary of Homeland Security to the Coast Guard.
Regulatory History
On July 1, 2009, following substantial coordination with DOI, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to
achieve consistent approaches to the inflation adjustment mandate, the
Coast Guard published an Interim Final Rule With Request For Comments
(IFR) (74 FR 31357), implementing the first set of regulatory inflation
adjustments to the limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports,
and establishing the methodology the Coast Guard will use for future
inflation adjustments to the limits of liability for its delegated
source categories. (See 33 CFR 138.240. See also, Notice of Final
Rulemaking, 73 FR 54997 (September 24, 2008), and Final Rule, 75 FR 750
(January 6, 2010)).
As described in the preamble to the Coast Guard's IFR, DOI and
other agencies with delegated authority for adjusting the OPA liability
limits agreed to follow the Coast Guard's inflation adjustment
methodology. BOEM has coordinated with the Coast Guard on the inflation
adjustments to the OPA liability limit in this rulemaking.
BOEM published its proposed rule to increase the OPA offshore
facility limit of liability on February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10056). The
comment period closed on April 25, 2014. This final rule increases the
offshore facility limit of liability for OPA damages to $133.65 million
and establishes the methodology for future inflation adjustments, which
generally follows the Coast Guard's approach.
Offshore Facility Limit of Liability
This rule implements the first mandated adjustment, under 33 U.S.C.
2704(d)(4), to the OPA limit of liability for damages for offshore
facilities to reflect significant increases in the CPI. This rule also
establishes a methodology for making inflation adjustments to the OPA
limit of liability for offshore facilities. To ensure maximum
consistency in promulgating rules for CPI adjustments to the OPA limit
of liability, the approach used by BOEM follows, in most respects, the
inflation adjustment approach used by the Coast Guard in its 2009 CPI
rulemaking that adjusted the limits of liability for vessels and
deepwater ports. That approach, found at 33 CFR part 138, subpart B,
went through a full notice and comment rulemaking and received no
adverse comments.
Offshore facilities are unique among the vessels and facilities
covered under OPA. The OPA, at 33 U.S.C. 2704(a), assigns unlimited
liability to the responsible parties for removal costs resulting from
an offshore facility oil spill incident, and only limits their
liability for the damages that result from such a spill and that are
covered by OPA. This rulemaking adjusts the offshore facility limit of
liability for OPA damages to $133.65 million. Under OPA, the
responsible parties' liability for removal costs resulting from an
offshore facility oil spill incident remains unlimited.
Oil Spill Financial Responsibility Requirements Are Not Affected by
This Rulemaking
This rulemaking does not affect the level of oil spill financial
responsibility (OSFR) coverage (found in 33 U.S.C. 2716(c), and 30 CFR
553.13) that responsible parties must demonstrate for covered offshore
facilities (COFs) under subparts B through E in the regulations at 30
CFR part 553.
The OPA offshore facility limit of liability applies to more
facilities than are covered by the OSFR requirement. The limit of
liability for offshore facilities applies to all offshore facilities
(other than deepwater ports), while OSFR coverage is required only for
offshore facilities (other than deepwater ports) located seaward of the
coastline, or in any portion of a bay connected to the sea generally,
with a worst case oil discharge potential of more than 1,000 barrels
and meeting other specific
[[Page 73834]]
criteria in the definition of COF found in 30 CFR 553.3.
The OSFR coverage levels are specified at 33 U.S.C. 2716 and are
not tied to the offshore facility limit of liability and, therefore,
are not affected by the inflation adjustments required under OPA at 33
U.S.C. 2704(d)(4). The OSFR coverage provisions of OPA establish
minimum and maximum coverage amounts for any activity involving a COF.
The OSFR coverage amounts are found in OPA at 33 U.S.C. 2716(c) and in
the regulations at 30 CFR 553.13.
Unlike the evidence of financial responsibility requirements
applicable to vessels and deepwater ports, which are administered by
the Coast Guard and are directly tied to the applicable CPI-adjusted
limits of liability, OSFR coverage requirements are not directly tied
to, and their levels do not automatically increase with changes in, the
offshore facility limit of liability. OPA does not authorize an OSFR
increase based solely on an increase in the limit of liability for
offshore facilities occasioned by CPI adjustments. Rather, as stated in
33 U.S.C. 2716(c)(1)(C), any adjustment to the required OSFR coverage
amount must be separately ``justified based on the relative
operational, environmental, human health, and other risks posed by the
quantity or quality of oil that is explored for, drilled for, produced,
or transported by the responsible party . . . .''
BOEM specifically requested comments on any potential OSFR
insurance underwriter premium increases. We received no comments
related to OSFR insurance premiums during the proposed rule comment
period.
Additional Regulatory Changes in 30 CFR Part 553
Section 553.1 of this rule, consistent with the proposed rule,
expands the purpose section to include adjusting the limit of
liability. In section 553.3, the final rule also adds, consistent with
the proposed rule, the following three new definitions to facilitate
the implementation of the inflation adjustment process: Annual CPI-U,
Current Period, and Previous Period. It also adds a new definition for
Responsible Party, in the context of Subpart G.
Discussion of This Rule
I. Explanation of the CPI Adjustment to the Offshore Facility Limit of
Liability for Damages
This rule implements the first adjustment, mandated by 33 U.S.C.
2704(d)(4), to the OPA limit of liability for damages caused by the
responsible party for a facility from which oil is discharged, or which
poses the substantial threat of a discharge from offshore facilities
other than deepwater ports to reflect significant increases in the CPI.
This rule also establishes the methodology that BOEM will use to make
periodic CPI adjustments to the OPA offshore facility limit of
liability for damages. These provisions are encompassed in a new 30 CFR
part 553 subpart G.
1. How will BOEM calculate CPI adjustments to the limit of liability
for offshore facilities?
BOEM will calculate the new limit of liability for the offshore
facility source category using the following formula: New limit of
liability = Previous limit of liability + (Previous limit of liability
multiplied by the decimal equivalent of the percent change in the CPI
from the year the previous limit of liability was established, or last
adjusted by statute or regulation, whichever is later, to the present
year), then rounded to the closest $100.
2. Which CPI will BOEM use?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a variety of
inflation indices, including the ``Consumer Price Index--All Urban
Consumers, Not Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. City Average, All Items, 1982-
84 = 100,'' also known as ``CPI-U,'' for both monthly and annual
periods. Consistent with the Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR 138.240,
BOEM will use CPI-U values, which may be viewed on the BLS Web site at:
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifiles/cpiai.txt. For consistency with the
Coast Guard's limits of liability CPI adjustment rule, BOEM will use
the annual period CPI-U (hereinafter the ``Annual CPI-U''), rather than
the monthly period CPI-U.
3. How will BOEM calculate the percent change in the Annual CPI-U?
Consistent with the Coast Guard's inflation adjustment methodology,
BOEM will calculate the percent change in the Annual CPI-U using the
BLS escalation formula described in Fact Sheet 00-1, U.S. Department of
Labor Program Highlights, ``How to Use the Consumer Price Index for
Escalation,'' September 2000. This formula provides that: Percent
change in the Annual CPI-U = [(Annual CPI-U for Current Period--Annual
CPI-U for Previous Period) / Annual CPI-U for Previous Period] x 100.
Fact Sheet 00-1 is available from the BLS online at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi1998d.pdf.
4. Which Annual CPI-U ``Previous Period'' and ``Current Period'' will
BOEM use for its first inflation adjustment to the offshore facility
limit of liability?
To maintain the real value of the amount of liability authorized by
OPA for damages, as contemplated in the original OPA mandate that
directed the limit of liability be adjusted for the CPI, BOEM will use
a ``Previous Period'' of 1990, the year OPA was enacted. For the
``Current Period,'' BOEM will use the most recently published Annual
CPI-U (see 30 CFR 553.703(a)). The latter is consistent with the Coast
Guard's OPA limits of liability rule at 33 CFR 138.240 for vessels and
deep water ports.
For the calculations in this rule, BOEM has used the 2013 Annual
CPI-U, published on January 16, 2014. Future updates will proceed on a
3-year schedule, as provided in 30 CFR 553.703.
5. How has BOEM calculated the adjustment to the limit of liability and
what is the new limit?
The following illustrates how BOEM will apply the BLS escalation
formula to calculate the decimal equivalent of the percent change in
the Annual CPI-U to adjust the limit of liability for offshore
facilities. The Annual CPI-U (index base period (1982-84 = 100)) for
Current Period (2013): 232.957 - Annual CPI-U for Previous Period
(1990): 130.7 = an index point change: 102.257 / Annual CPI-U for
Previous Period: 130.7 = 0.782; result multiplied by 100: 0.782 x 100 =
percent change in the Annual CPI-U of 78.2 percent. Note that the
cumulative percent change value is rounded to one decimal place as
provided in Sec. 553.703.
The ``Current Period'' value for this methodology is the Annual
CPI-U for the previous calendar year, due to the BLS Annual CPI-U
publication schedule.
Applying these values, this final rule adjusts the statutory
offshore facility limit of liability for OPA damages of $75 million by
the 78.2 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index Annual (CPI-U)
that has taken place since 1990, to $133,650,000.
6. How will BOEM calculate the percent change for subsequent inflation
adjustments to the OPA limit of liability for offshore facilities?
This rule establishes the adjustment methodology BOEM will use for
subsequent CPI adjustments to the OPA limit of liability for offshore
facilities. Key features for the future inflation adjustments to the
limit of liability include:
[[Page 73835]]
BOEM plans to publish, through a final rule in the Federal
Register, the inflation adjustments to the limit of liability for
offshore facilities every three years, counting from 2014 with this
rulemaking, provided that the threshold for a significant increase in
the Annual CPI-U is met. A three percent or more change constitutes the
significant increase threshold. The current adjustment uses the 2013
Annual CPI-U for the ``Current Period.''
BOEM has discretion to adjust the offshore facility limit
of liability more frequently than every three years, by regulation, to
reflect significant increases in the CPI.
If Congress amends the limit of liability for offshore
facilities, BOEM will calculate the Annual CPI-U change with the
``Previous Period'' beginning with the year in which Congress amends
the limit of liability. Otherwise we will calculate the percent change
in the CPI-U for the next CPI adjustment to the offshore facility limit
using the 2013 Annual CPI-U (the ``Current Period'' for today's
adjustment to the limit of liability) as the ``Previous Period'' value.
BOEM will evaluate whether the cumulative percent change
in the Annual CPI-U since the last adjustment has exceeded three
percent no later than 2017 (using the 2016 Annual CPI-U as the
``Current Period''). If the change is three percent or greater, BOEM
will publish a final rule in the Federal Register with the new
inflation-adjusted offshore facility limit of liability. If, by the end
of the three-year period, the cumulative percent change in the Annual
CPI-U is less than three percent, BOEM will publish a notice in the
Federal Register of no inflation adjustment to the limit of liability.
Following a notice of no inflation adjustment, BOEM will
evaluate the cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U annually and
adjust the limit based on the cumulative percent change in the Annual
CPI-U, once the three-percent threshold is reached. After this
adjustment is made, BOEM will resume its process of conducting a review
every three years.
7. How will BOEM provide public notice for the offshore facility limit
of liability adjustments?
BOEM will publish subsequent CPI or statutory adjustments to the
offshore facility limit of liability for damages in a final rule in the
Federal Register. A final rule will provide for timely notice of the
CPI adjustments and will keep the offshore facility limit of liability
amount current in BOEM regulations.
II. Additional Changes to 30 CFR Part 553
1. Update to Section 553.1 (What is the purpose of this part?'')
Consistent with the proposed rule, BOEM is making the following
changes to 30 CFR part 553, setting forth the limit of liability for
offshore facilities under OPA.
2. Definition Changes for Terms Found at 30 CFR 553.3 (``How are the
terms used in this regulation defined?'')
BOEM is adding the following definitions to 30 CFR 553.3: Annual
CPI-U, current period, previous period and Responsible party for
purposes of Subpart G.
Changes Made Between the Proposed Rule and This Final Rule
The proposed rule would have revised the definition of
``responsible party'' in the existing regulation at 30 CFR 553.3, which
addresses the party's responsibilities for COFs under the OSFR program.
While the existing definition of ``responsible party'' adequately
addresses the needs of the OSFR program, it does not contemplate the
broader range of facilities that are covered by the limit of liability
for offshore facilities under OPA at 33 U.S.C. 2704. In the context of
OPA liability, a responsible party's liability is not limited to
damages or removal costs associated with a COF. In this final rule, the
new definition of ``responsible party'' for the limit of liability for
offshore facilities in subpart G now makes clear that it also applies
to all offshore facilities, whether the facilities are COFs (subject to
the financial responsibility requirements of subparts A through F), or
not, while the existing definition of ``responsible party'' for OSFR
remains unchanged.
Further, BOEM has removed the following sentence from the
definition of ``responsible party'' that appeared in the notice of
proposed rulemaking: ``The owner of operating rights in a lease is a
responsible party with respect to facilities that serve or served an
area and depth in which it holds operating rights, but not with respect
to any facility that only serves parts of the lease to which it does
not hold operating rights.'' A lessee of the area in which the facility
is located is a responsible party under OPA at sec. 2701(32)(C). The
definition of ``responsible party'' in both the proposed rule and in
this final rule includes lessees as responsible parties. BOEM's
definition of ``lessee'' in its existing regulation at 30 CFR 553.3
(which is not changed by this final rule) includes a holder of
operating rights (working interest owner). Therefore, when read
together, the definition of ``responsible party'' without the described
sentence and the definition of ``lessee'' hold operating rights owners
responsible, making this sentence unnecessary. To reinforce this
connection between the definitions, BOEM has added a phrase in the
second sentence of the definition of ``responsible party for purposes
of Subpart G'' to expressly state that a responsible party includes
lessees ``as defined in this subpart.''
Response to Comments
BOEM published a proposed rule entitled, ``Consumer Price Index
Adjustments of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Limit of Liability for
Offshore Facilities'' in the Federal Register on February 24, 2014,
with a 30 day request for comment period. The comment period was
extended by an additional 30 days on March 26, 2014. The comment period
ended on April 25, 2014. BOEM received a number of comment letters from
interested stakeholders, and carefully considered them prior to
finalizing the rulemaking.
Sixteen distinct written comments, eight from organizations and
eight from individuals, were submitted regarding the proposed rule. Of
the organizations, BOEM received three comments from industry/trade
associations, one from a charitable trust, and the four remaining
comments, submitted on behalf of a total of 17 organizations, were from
environmental organizations. None of the comments that BOEM received
expressed any opposition to the proposed increase in the limit of
liability for offshore facilities.
One company, ConocoPhillips, supported the rule as proposed; while
other industry organizations, the Independent Petroleum Association of
America and the National Ocean Industries Association took no position
on the proposed rule. The Pew Charitable Trust, the Gulf Restoration
Network, the Ocean Conservancy, and five of the individual commenters
supported the rule as proposed.
The Alaska Wilderness League, the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD), the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, the Citizens' Coalition to Ban
Toxic Dispersants, Clean Ocean Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends
of the Earth, Greenpeace, Hands Across the Sand, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Oasis Earth,
Ocean Conservation Research, Pacific Environment, and the Surfrider
Foundation also supported the proposed
[[Page 73836]]
increase, but argued that the amount of increase is too small. The CBD
suggested an alternative limit of between $20 and $50 billion.
With one exception, all of the comments expressed support for the
proposed inflation index and methodology, which BOEM proposed to use to
adjust the limit of liability on an ongoing basis. BOEM received a
comment suggesting the Chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U) be used instead of the
standard CPI-U for adjusting the offshore facility limit of liability.
The commenter suggested that the C-CPI-U is a ``closer approximation to
a cost-of-living index'' than the CPI-U.
Responses to those comments are contained in the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment received BOEM response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter Tupper suggested that BOEM That issue is addressed in
should use a chained Consumer Price detail at the end of this
Index (C-CPI-U) instead of the CPI for Section.
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
Commenter Tupper also suggested that BOEM's authority to increase
the update methodology should include the financial responsibility
a mechanism for adjusting the limit requirements is limited to the
for offshore facilities downward, as circumstances and amount set
well as upward, to account for forth in 33 U.S.C.
potential deflation, as well as 2716(c)(1)(C).
inflation. The Oil Pollution Act does not
have any provision to allow
for downward revisions in the
limits of liability for
deflation. In addition to the
statutory restriction, BOEM
believes that the limit of
liability is already
potentially too low and that
any downward adjustment would
conflict with the goals of the
statute. For these reasons,
the adjustment formula is not
revised to allow for downward
adjustments in the limit of
liability amount.
The CBD and its co-respondents BOEM's authority to increase
suggested that BOEM ``should also the financial responsibility
increase the financial responsibility requirements is limited to the
requirements to ensure that companies circumstances and amount set
in fact have the capability to meet forth in 33 U.S.C.
the increased liability requirements''. 2716(c)(1)(C).
Commenter Dobkin suggested that the Laws related to taxation are
state and federal tax deductibility of outside the scope of this rule
payments made in connection with an and not within BOEM's
oil spill be eliminated. authority to regulate.
Commenter Commeaux suggested that an Stop work orders are outside
automatic stop-work order be issued in the scope of this rule.
the event of a spill.
Commenter Commeaux also suggested that Authority to invoke criminal
criminal penalties be implemented penalties against those
against those responsible for any responsible for oil spills is
spill. outside the scope of this rule
and not within BOEM or the
DOI's authority to regulate.
Commenter Commeaux also implied that Authority to impose or increase
new or increased civil penalties be civil penalties against those
considered against those responsible responsible for oil spills is
for any spill. outside the scope of this rule
and not within BOEM or the
DOI's authority to regulate.
Commenter Donovan suggested that BOEM Interpreting the meaning of the
redefine the meaning of the word word ``expenditure,'' as used
``expenditure'' as used in the context in 26 U.S.C. 9509(c) (per
of any oil spill. ``. . . the proper incident cap on Oil Spill
definition of the term Liability Trust Funds (OSLTF)
``expenditure,'' under the OSLTF, expenditures), is outside the
means an expenditure that is not scope of this rule and not
reimbursed by the responsible party.'' within BOEM or the DOI's
Mr. Donovan explains why he believes authority to regulate.
this change would be appropriate:
``The advantage of defining an
expenditure, under the OSLTF, as ``an
expenditure that is not reimbursed by
the responsible party,'' is twofold:
(a) It eliminates, without the need to
pass retroactive legislation, the $1
billion cap which may be paid from the
OSLTF with respect to any single
incident and allows the OSLTF to
maintain a balance of at least $1
billion for the purpose of paying
claims for damages resulting from
other oil spill incidents. As the
OSLTF pool of $1 billion is depleted
by payments made to oil spill
claimants, it is replenished, by
virtue of subrogation, by
reimbursements made to the OSLTF by
the responsible party; and (b) It
ensures that the cost of a
catastrophic oil spill incident shall
be borne by the responsible party, not
the federal taxpayer''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPI-U measures prices of a base basket, which uses a single
expenditure base period to compute the price change over time; in
contrast, the C-CPI-U, which the commenter suggested, reflects the
effect of any substitutions consumers make across item categories in
response to relative price changes. BOEM is retaining the CPI-U for
several reasons.
(a) The adjustment of the limit of liability addresses inflation
since 1990 when the current offshore facility limit was established.
The C-CPI-U was first published by Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in
2002, with a historical series dating back to 1999. The officially
published C-CPI-U series from BLS does not extend back to 1990.
Although it may be possible to join the published C-CPI-U with the
older, non-chained CPI-U series or with data not included in the
officially published C-CPI-U, such an adjustment would not represent an
official BLS statistical series. Therefore, to ensure a consistent
adjustment to reflect inflation, this rule uses the CPI-U.
(b) The CPI-U was the primary CPI measure at the time of the
Delaware River Protection Act (DRPA) OPA amendments in 2006 (Pub. L.
109-241). The DRPA amendments maintained the requirement of three year
adjustments to ``reflect significant increases in the Consumer price
Index.'' In addition, the C-CPI-U was available when DRPA amended the
limits of liability adjustment provision of OPA, 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4),
and Congress could have, but did not, require its use.
(c) The CPI-U is the most frequently used escalation variable in
private sector collective bargaining agreements, rental contracts, and
insurance policies with automatic inflation protection.
(d) Also, the U.S. Coast Guard uses the CPI-U for the OPA limit of
liability
[[Page 73837]]
adjustments under its jurisdiction. Based on this and the three
previous considerations, BOEM has concluded that the C-CPI-U does not
provide a compelling advantage for more accurate price measurements of
changes in potential liabilities under this rulemaking.
Summary of Changes to 30 CFR Part 553 by Subpart
Amendments to Subpart A
Changes to sections 553.1 and 553.3, as described above.
Amendments to Subpart B
None.
Amendments to Subpart C
None.
Amendments to Subpart D
None.
Amendments to Subpart E
None.
Amendments to Subpart F
None.
Addition of New Subpart G
New Subpart, as described above.
Legal and Regulatory Analyses
Presidential Executive Orders
E.O. 12630--Takings Implication Assessment
According to Executive Order 12630, this final rule does not have
significant takings implications. The rulemaking is not a governmental
action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property
rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
E.O. 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this
rulemaking under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. BOEM does not believe
this rulemaking constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' under
E.O. 12866 based on the following:
(1) These provisions simply adjust the offshore facility limit of
liability for damages by the CPI. This rule will likely not have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will likely
also not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities. The new offshore facility
limit of liability increases the pollution liability of offshore
facility responsible parties and may result in increased costs if
damages exceed $75 million. If damages from an offshore facility oil
spill exceed $75 million, the higher limit of liability ($133.65
million) in this rule will impose greater nominal costs on the
responsible parties. In constant 1990 dollars, the limit of liability
for offshore facilities implemented by this final rule is the same as
established in OPA and preserves the ``polluter pays'' principle. The
infrequent occurrence of large oil spills from offshore facilities
suggests that the compliance costs from this increase in the limit of
liability are likely to be immaterial to the operating costs for
offshore facility responsible parties over time.
(2) This final rule would not create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
BOEM has coordinated with the Coast Guard and the Department of Justice
on this rulemaking.
(3) This final rule would not alter the budgetary effects of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or
obligations of their recipients.
(4) This final rule does not raise any novel legal or policy
issues. OPA requires the offshore facility limit of liability to be
adjusted for inflation not less than every three years to reflect
significant increases in the CPI.
E.O. 12988--Civil Justice Reform
This final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
E.O. 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks
BOEM has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This final
rule is not an economically significant rule and an analysis of
environmental health risks is therefore not required. Regardless, this
is an administrative rule and it does not create any environmental risk
to health or any risk to safety that may disproportionately affect
children.
E.O. 13132--Federalism
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have
federalism implications. This final rule does not have substantial
direct effects on the relationship between the Federal and State
governments. This final rule will not affect the role of State and
local governments with respect to their offshore facility activities. A
Federalism Assessment is not required.
E.O. 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This final rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Under the criteria in E.O.
13175, we evaluated this final rule and determined that it has no
substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.
E.O. 13211--Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply
BOEM has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.'' BOEM has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order. This final rule is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
E.O. 13563--Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
E.O. 13563 requires that our regulatory system protect public
health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based
on the best available science. It must allow for public participation
and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and
reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative
and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take
into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It
must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in
plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to
improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.
[[Page 73838]]
This E.O. is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review
that were established in E.O. 12866. As stated in that E.O., and to the
extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1)
Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose
the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive benefits;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information with which choices
can be made by the public.
The increased offshore facility limit of liability for damages in
this rulemaking is required by statute (OPA). This rulemaking does not
amend the OSFR requirements in 30 CFR part 553. BOEM does not believe
that OSFR insurance premiums will be significantly impacted by this
rulemaking. BOEM solicited comments on that issue; however, no comments
were received. The limit of liability increase is necessary to ensure
that the deterrent effect and the ``polluter pays'' principle embodied
in OPA's liability provisions are preserved.
Clarity of this Regulation
E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(2)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and,
E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, require that every agency write its rules in plain language. This
means that, wherever possible, each rule must: (a) Have a logical
organization; (b) use the active voice to address readers directly; (c)
use common, everyday words, and clear language, rather than jargon; (d)
use short sections and sentences; and (e) maximize the use of lists and
tables.
With the issuance of the proposed rule, BOEM requested that any
commenters that believed that it has not met these requirements should
send their comments to Peter Meffert at Peter.Meffert@boem.gov. To
better help us revise the final rule, BOEM requested that your comments
be as specific as possible. For example, BOEM asked whether any of the
sections or the paragraphs were written unclearly, which sections or
sentences were too long, what additional sections, lists or tables
would be useful, etc. No comments were received on this topic. For that
reason, BOEM has concluded that no changes in the clarity and
organization of the rule are necessary.
Public Availability of Comments
All written comments that have been received in the docket [BOEM-
2012-0076] for this rulemaking, including names and addresses of
respondents, have been posted at www.regulations.gov.
Statutes
Data Quality Act
In developing this final rule, BOEM did not conduct or use a study,
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act
(Pub. L. 106-554, app. C Sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153 to 154).
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. BOEM has
analyzed this final rule under the criteria of NEPA and DOI's
regulations implementing NEPA. This final rule meets the criteria set
forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in
that this final rule is ``. . . of an administrative, financial, legal,
technical, or procedural nature . . .'' BOEM also has analyzed this
final rule to determine if it involves any of the extraordinary
circumstances that would require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement, as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215, and
concluded that this final rule would not involve any extraordinary
circumstances.
Further, this final rule involves congressionally mandated
regulations and there is no discretion in the agency to be informed by
NEPA analysis.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
The NTTAA, Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 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 final rule does not require the use of any technical
specifications or standards and, therefore, the requirement to follow
voluntary consensus standards does not apply to this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
This rule does not contain new information collection requirements
that require approval by OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements
associated with 30 CFR 553 and assigned OMB Control Number 1010-0106,
which expires December 31, 2016. BOEM may not conduct or sponsor and
you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
DOI certifies that this final rule would not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The changes in this final rule will potentially affect all oil and
gas lessees, operators of leases, holders or rights of use and
easement, and pipeline right-of-way holders in the OCS and in State
waters. The changes further may affect any operators of oil and gas
facilities in other offshore locations, such as navigable rivers and
lakes; however, the level of damages for inland water offshore facility
incidents have historically been far below the statutory limit and are
not likely to exceed the statutory limit of liability. Available
information indicates that the changes would mainly affect about 170
active operators and owners on the OCS and State offshore waters. These
approximately 170 operators and owners provide OSFR coverage for more
than 7,800 OCS Right-of-Use and Easement (RUE) facilities, pipeline
Rights-of-Way (ROWs), and leases (both with and without permanent
facilities). Small lessees, ROW or RUE holders or operators that
operate under this final rule primarily fall under the Small Business
Administration's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes 211111, Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, 213111,
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells and
[[Page 73839]]
237120, Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures. For these NAICS
code classifications, a small company is one with fewer than 500
employees. Based on these criteria, an estimated two-thirds of these
companies are considered small. This final rule, therefore, will affect
a substantial number of small entities, but it would not have a
significant economic effect on those entities, since the OSFR
thresholds are not being adjusted.
This final rule could impact certain OCS and other offshore
operators and owners through negligibly higher insurance premiums. Most
small entities do not self-insure, but rather share ownership with
larger companies that provide them with OSFR coverage or else they
obtain insurance for their OSFR obligations in the private marketplace.
BOEM does not expect the 78.2 percent increase in the limit of
liability to cause the OSFR insurance premiums to materially increase
because of the very low anticipated frequency of claims and because
each guarantor's or insurer's exposure is limited to the OSFR
prescribed coverage limit of $35 million or $150 million. Any potential
increased insurance premium should be relatively insignificant as
compared to the considerable operational costs and liability risks
associated with activities on the OCS. This is true for even the
smallest of OCS and other offshore operators and owners. BOEM welcomed
specific comments on any expected or potential corresponding OSFR
premium increases that may occur because of the increased limit of
liability or for some related reason. No such comments were received.
For this reason, BOEM believes that its original assessment was correct
that no such OSFR premium increases will necessarily occur as a result
of this rulemaking.
The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments
from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The
Ombudsman will annually rate an agency's responsiveness to their
comments and evaluate the enforcement activities. If you wish to
comment on the actions of BOEM, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to
the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation.
Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the Small Business
Administration will be investigated for appropriate action.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Pursuant to section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), BOEM wants to
assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking. If you
believe that this final rule will affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact
Marshall Rose, of the BOEM Economics Division, at the address in the
Technical Information Section listed above.
This final rule is not a major rule under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule will
not:
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more;
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or,
have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The
requirements of this rule will apply to all entities having oil and gas
operations offshore, including in State waters.
Based on the maximum potential worst case oil spill discharge,
approximately 110 of the 170 companies with covered offshore facilities
are required to demonstrate OSFR coverage of $70 million or less (see
30 CFR 553.13). These 110 companies will likely not experience any
insurance premium increases because of the increased limit of
liability, since the level of required OSFR is not impacted by the
offshore limit of liability adjustment to $133.65 million. Another five
companies must demonstrate OSFR coverage of $105 million. BOEM believes
that these companies are unlikely to experience increased insurance
premiums resulting from the increased offshore facility limit of
liability, just as the few companies demonstrating the $150 million in
OSFR coverage that are not self-insured or guaranteed are unlikely to
be affected by this rule.
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 businesses. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of BOEM, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-
734-3247).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100
million per year. The final rule will not have a significant or unique
effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 553
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Economic
analysis, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection,
Financial responsibility, Government contracts, Intergovernmental
relations, Investigations, OCS, Oil and gas exploration, Oil pollution,
Liability, Limit of liability, Penalties, Pipelines, Public lands--
mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-way, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Treasury securities.
Janice M. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management amends 30 CFR part 553 as follows:
PART 553--OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFSHORE
FACILITIES
0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 553 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 12777, as amended.
0
2. Revise Sec. 553.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 553.1 What is the purpose of this part?
This part establishes the requirements for demonstrating Oil Spill
Financial Responsibility for covered offshore facilities (COF), sets
forth the procedures for claims against COF guarantors, and sets forth
the limit of liability for offshore facilities, as adjusted, under
Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq. (OPA).
0
3. Amend Sec. 553.3 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Annual CPI-U,''
[[Page 73840]]
``Current period,'' and ``Previous period;''
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Responsible party'' to read as follows:
Sec. 553.3 How are the terms used in this regulation defined?
Sec. 553.3 How are the terms used in this regulation defined?
* * * * *
Annual CPI-U means the annual ``Consumer Price Index-All Urban
Consumers, Not Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. City Average, All items, 1982
- 84 = 100,'' published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
* * * * *
Current period means the year in which the Annual CPI-U was most
recently published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
* * * * *
Previous period means the year in which the previous limit of
liability was established, or last adjusted by statute or regulation,
whichever is later.
Responsible party, for purposes of subparts B through F, has the
following meanings:
(1) For a COF that is a pipeline, responsible party means any
person owning or operating the pipeline;
(2) For a COF that is not a pipeline, responsible party means
either the lessee or permittee of the area in which the COF is located,
or the holder of a right-of-use and easement granted under applicable
State law or the OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1301-1356) for the area in which the
COF is located (if the holder is a different person than the lessee or
permittee). A Federal agency, State, municipality, commission, or
political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body that as owner
transfers possession and right to use the property to another person by
lease, assignment, or permit is not a responsible party; and
(3) For an abandoned COF, responsible party means any person who
would have been a responsible party for the COF immediately before
abandonment.
Responsible party, for purposes of subpart G, has the meaning in 33
U.S.C. 2701(32)(C), (E) and (F). This definition includes, as
applicable, lessees as defined in this subpart, permittees, right-of-
use and easement holders, and pipeline owners and operators.
* * * * *
0
4. Add a new subpart G to part 553 to read as follows:
Subpart G--Limit of Liability for Offshore Facilities
Sec.
553.700 What is the scope of this subpart?
553.701 To which entities does this subpart apply?
553.702 What limit of liability applies to my offshore facility?
553.703 What is the procedure for calculating the limit of liability
adjustment for inflation?
553.704 How will BOEM publish the offshore facility limit of
liability adjustment?
Sec. 553.700 What is the scope of this subpart?
This subpart sets forth the limit of liability for damages for
offshore facilities under Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) (OPA), as adjusted, under section
1004(d) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)). This subpart also sets forth the
method for adjusting the limit of liability for damages for offshore
facilities for inflation, by regulation, under section 1004(d) of OPA
(33 U.S.C. 2704(d)).
Sec. 553.701 To which entities does this subpart apply?
This subpart applies to you if you are a responsible party for an
offshore facility, other than a deepwater port under the Deepwater Port
Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501-1524), but including an offshore pipeline,
or an abandoned offshore facility, including any abandoned offshore
pipeline, unless your liability is unlimited under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C.
2704(c)).
Sec. 553.702 What limit of liability applies to my offshore facility?
Except as provided in 33 U.S.C. 2704(c), the limit of liability
under OPA for a responsible party for any offshore facility, including
any offshore pipeline, is the total of all removal costs plus $133.65
million for damages with respect to each incident.
Sec. 553.703 What is the procedure for calculating the limit of
liability adjustment for inflation?
The procedure for calculating limit of liability adjustments for
inflation is as follows:
(a) Formula for calculating a cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI-U. BOEM calculates the cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI-U from the year the limit of liability was established by
statute, or last adjusted by regulation, whichever is later (i.e., the
Previous Period), to the year in which the Annual CPI-U is most
recently published (i.e., the Current Period), using the following
formula: Percent change in the Annual CPI-U = [(Annual CPI-U for
Current Period - Annual CPI-U for Previous Period) / Annual CPI-U for
Previous Period] x 100. This cumulative percent change value is rounded
to one decimal place.
(b) Significance threshold.
(1) A cumulative increase in the Annual CPI-U equal to three
percent or more constitutes a significant increase in the Consumer
Price Index within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4).
(2) Not later than every three years from the year the limit of
liability was last adjusted for inflation, BOEM will evaluate whether
the cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U since that year has
reached a significance threshold of three percent or greater.
(3) For any three-year period evaluated under paragraph (b)(2) of
this section in which the cumulative percent increase in the Annual
CPI-U is less than three percent, if BOEM has not issued an inflation
adjustment during that period, BOEM will publish a notice of no
inflation adjustment to the offshore facility limit of liability for
damages in the Federal Register.
(4) Once the three-percent threshold is reached, BOEM will increase
by final rule the offshore facility limit of liability for damages in
Sec. 553.702 by an amount equal to the cumulative percent change in
the Annual CPI-U from the year the limit was established by statute, or
last adjusted by regulation, whichever is later. After this adjustment
is made, BOEM will resume its process of conducting a review every
three years.
(5) Nothing in this section will prevent BOEM, in BOEM's sole
discretion, from adjusting the offshore facility limit of liability for
damages for inflation by regulation issued more frequently than every
three years.
(c) Formula for calculating inflation adjustments. BOEM calculates
adjustments to the offshore facility limit of liability in 30 CFR
553.702 for inflation using the following formula:
New limit of liability = Previous limit of liability + (Previous limit
of liability x the decimal equivalent of the percent change in the
Annual CPI-U calculated under paragraph (a) of this section), then
rounded to the closest $100.
Sec. 553.704 How will BOEM publish the offshore facility limit of
liability adjustment?
BOEM will publish the inflation-adjusted limit of liability, and
any statutory amendments to that limit of liability in the Federal
Register, as amendments to Sec. 553.702. Updates to the limit of
liability under this section are effective on the 90th day after
[[Page 73841]]
publication in the Federal Register of the amendments to Sec. 553.702,
unless otherwise specified by statute (in the event of a statutory
amendment to the limit of liability), or in the Federal Register rule
amending Sec. 553.702.
[FR Doc. 2014-29093 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P