Operational Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards, 62651-62679 [2020-21071]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
concentration per fluid ounce or
milliliter);
(iii) Number of units or volume of
finished form in each commercial
container (e.g., 100-tablet bottle or 3milliliter vial);
(iv) Number of units or volume of
finished form in each commercial
container and number of commercial
containers destroyed (e.g., 100-tablet
bottle or 3-milliliter vial);
(v) Date of the destruction;
(vi) Manner of disposal of the
substance, if applicable;
(vii) Name, address, and registration
number of the person to whom the
substance was distributed, if applicable;
and
(viii) Name and title of the person
destroying the controlled substance.
(c) A designated location of an
emergency medical services agency that
receives controlled substances must
notify the agency’s registered location
within 72 hours of receipt of the
controlled substances, in the following
circumstances:
(1) An emergency medical services
vehicle primarily situated at a
designated location of the emergency
medical services agency acquires
controlled substances from a hospital
while restocking following an
emergency response;
(2) The designated location of the
emergency medical services agency
receives controlled substances from
another designated location of the same
agency.
substances in schedules II–V outside the
physical presence of a medical director
or authorizing medical professional in
the course of providing emergency
medical services if the administration is
authorized by law of the State in which
it occurs; and is pursuant to:
(1) A standing order that is issued and
adopted by one or more medical
directors of the agency, including any
such order that may be developed by a
specific State’s authority; or
(2) A verbal order that is:
(i) Issued in accordance with a policy
of the agency; and
(ii) Provided by a medical director or
an authorizing medical professional in
response to a request by the emergency
medical services professional with
respect to a specific patient —
(A) In the case of a mass casualty
incident; or
(B) To ensure the proper care and
treatment of a specific patient.
(f) An emergency medical services
agency shall maintain, at a registered
location of the agency, a record of the
standing or verbal orders issued or
adopted in accordance with § 1304.13 of
this chapter.
notifies the registered location of the
agency within 72 hours of the vehicle
receiving the controlled substances.
■ 18. Add § 1307.15 under undesignated
heading ‘‘Special Exceptions for
Manufacture and Distribution of
Controlled Substances’’ to read as
follows:
PART 1307—MISCELLANEOUS
Coast Guard
16. The authority citation for part
1307 is revised to read as follows:
33 CFR Part 127
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 821, 822(d), 823(j),
871(b), unless otherwise noted.
§ 1307.15 Delivery of controlled
substances in emergency situations.
(a) Hospitals and emergency medical
services agencies’ registered locations,
and designated locations may deliver
controlled substances to each other,
with written approval from the Special
Agent in Charge of DEA for the area or
DEA Headquarters, in the event of:
(1) Shortages of such substances;
(2) A public health emergency; or
(3) A mass casualty event.
Timothy J. Shea,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020–21675 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
[Docket No. USCG–2019–0444]
RIN 1625–AC52
Operational Risk Assessments for
Waterfront Facilities Handling
Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and
Updates to Industry Standards
■
17. Add § 1307.14 under undesignated
heading ‘‘Special Exceptions for
Manufacture and Distribution of
Controlled Substances’’ to read as
follows:
ACTION:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 821, 823(j), 829, 831,
871(b), unless otherwise noted.
§ 1307.14 Delivery of controlled
substances to designated locations of
emergency medical services agencies.
PART 1306—PRESCRIPTIONS
13. The authority citation for part
1306 is revised to read as follows:
14. Revise § 1306.01 to read as
follows:
■
§ 1306.01
Scope of part 1306.
This part sets forth the process and
procedures for dispensing, by way of
prescribing and administering
controlled substances to ultimate users.
The purpose of such procedures is to
provide safe and efficient methods for
dispensing controlled substances while
providing effective controls against
diversion.
■ 15. Amend § 1306.07 by adding
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
62651
§ 1306.07 Administering or dispensing of
narcotic drugs.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) An emergency medical services
professional of a registered emergency
medical services agency may administer
directly (but not prescribe) controlled
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
■
(a) Notwithstanding the definition of
registered location in § 1300.06 of this
chapter, a registered emergency medical
services agency may receive controlled
substances from a hospital for purposes
of restocking an emergency medical
services vehicle following an emergency
response, and without being subject to
the requirements of § 1305.03 of this
chapter, provided all of the following
criteria are met:
(1) The registered or designated
location of the agency operating the
vehicle maintains the record of such
receipt in accordance with § 1304.27(b)
of this chapter;
(2) The hospital maintains a record of
such delivery to the agency in
accordance with § 1304.22(c) of this
chapter; and
(3) If the vehicle is primarily situated
at a designated location of an emergency
medical services agency, such location
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend its regulations concerning
waterfront facilities handling liquefied
natural gas (LNG) and liquefied
hazardous gas (LHG). The proposed rule
would make the following three
changes. First, the proposed rule would
revise the Coast Guard’s existing
regulations to allow waterfront facilities
handling LNG as fuel to conduct an
operational risk assessment instead of a
waterway suitability assessment (WSA)
without first obtaining Captain of the
Port approval. Second, the proposed
rule would revise existing regulations to
update incorporated technical standards
to reflect the most recent published
editions. Third, for waterfront facilities
handling LNG that must comply with
the WSA requirements, the proposed
rule would require these facilities to
provide information to the Coast Guard
regarding the nation of registry for
vessels transporting natural gas that are
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62652
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
reasonably anticipated to be servicing
the facilities, and the nationality or
citizenship of officers and crew serving
on board those vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before December 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2019–0444 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
Collection of information. Submit
written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection discussed in
section VIII.D of this preamble within
30 days of publication of this notice to
the Coast Guard’s online docket and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the White House
Office of Management and Budget. For
submission to OIRA use
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
To find this particular information
collection select ‘‘Currently under
Review’’ or use the search function.
Viewing material proposed for
incorporation by reference. Make
arrangements to view this material by
calling the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document. Copies of the material
are also available as indicated in the
‘‘Incorporated by Reference’’ in
§ 127.003 in the proposed regulatory
text.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about this document call or
email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager,
Coast Guard, Vessel and Facility
Operating Standards Division,
Commandant (CG–OES–2); telephone
202–372–1413, email Ken.A.Smith@
uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Executive Summary
IV. Basis and Purpose
V. Background
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards and Incorporation
by Reference
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
The Coast Guard views public
participation as essential to effective
rulemaking, and will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. Your comment can
help shape the outcome of this
rulemaking. If you submit a comment,
please include the docket number for
this rulemaking, indicate the specific
section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason
for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If you cannot
submit your material by using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions. Documents
mentioned as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will
be available in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be
viewed by following that website’s
instructions. Additionally, if you visit
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or if a final rule is
published.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting but will consider doing so if
our consideration of public comments
indicates a meeting would be helpful.
We would issue a separate Federal
Register notice to announce the date,
time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
COI Collection of Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG–OES Coast Guard, Office of Operating
and Environmental Standards
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
COTP Captain of the Port
DNV GL Det Norske Veritas Germanischer
Lloyd
ECA Emission Control Area
FR Federal Register
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
GSA General Services Administration
HAZID Hazard Identification
IBR Incorporated by reference
ICR Information collection request
IEC International Electrotechnical
Commission
ISO International Organization for
Standardization
LOI Letter of Intent
LOR Letter of Recommendation
LHG Liquefied hazardous gas
LNG Liquefied natural gas
MARPOL International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORA Operational risk assessment
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety
Authorities
SBA Small Business Administration
SME Subject Matter Expert
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WSA Waterway suitability assessment
III. Executive Summary
The purpose of this proposed rule is
to amend the regulations concerning
waterfront facilities handling liquefied
natural gas (LNG) and liquefied
hazardous gas (LHG) in 33 CFR part 127.
The proposed rule would make the
following three changes.
First, the proposed rule would add
new § 127.008 to allow waterfront
facilities handling LNG as fuel (LNG
fuel facilities 1) to conduct an
operational risk assessment (ORA)
instead of a waterway suitability
assessment (WSA), without first
obtaining Captain of the Port (COTP)
approval. By allowing LNG fuel
facilities to use an ORA in lieu of a
WSA without submitting an alternative
request and meeting with the COTP, the
proposed rule would reduce the
regulatory burden on LNG fuel facilities
by reducing the scope of the analysis
and the amount of information facility
owners would have to submit to the
Coast Guard. Currently, there are three
existing LNG fuel facilities. The Coast
Guard anticipates 1 new LNG fuel
facility would become operational every
year in the next 10 years. Reducing the
regulatory burden could result in lower
1 We propose to add a new definition for LNG fuel
facility to mean a waterfront facility that handles
LNG for the sole purpose of providing LNG from
shore-based structures to vessels for use as a marine
fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or receive
LNG from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk
as cargo.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
fuel costs, and thereby increase the
maritime industry’s level of interest in
converting or constructing vessels to use
LNG as a marine fuel to comply with
stricter emissions standards and realize
economic advantages.2
Second, the proposed rule would
update the technical standards already
incorporated by reference in part 127 to
reflect the most recent published
editions of these standards. We have
determined that modified, expanded,
and new LNG fuel facilities, waterfront
facilities handling LNG, and waterfront
facilities handling LHG are built to the
most recent industry standards available
at the time of modification, expansion,
or construction and not the outdated
standards currently codified in 46 CFR
part 127. Therefore, owners and
operators would not incur any cost to
meet the updated standards. The Coast
Guard anticipates these updated
industry standards would apply to one
new LNG fuel facility, two new
waterfront facilities handling LNG, and
three new waterfront facilities handling
LHG per year in the next 10 years.
Third, for waterfront facilities
handling LNG that must comply with
the WSA requirements in § 127.007, the
proposed rule would require these
facilities to provide information to the
Coast Guard at the time the WSA is
submitted regarding the nation of
registry for vessels transporting natural
gas that are reasonably anticipated to be
servicing the facilities and the
nationality of citizenship of officers and
crew serving on board those vessels. We
are proposing this change to assist us in
meeting our obligation under § 304(c)(2)
of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L.
109–241). This statute requires the Coast
Guard, when operating as a contributing
agency in the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) shoreside licensing
process for an onshore or near-shore
LNG terminal, to provide this
information to FERC. The Coast Guard
anticipates two waterfront facilities
handling LNG that must submit a WSA
would be affected annually by this
proposed change.
Eliminating the requirement to submit
an alternative request and meet with the
COTP to obtain approval before
conducting an ORA in lieu of a WSA
would result in cost savings to the LNG
fuel facility owner. This change is
deregulatory under Executive Orders
13771 and 13777, with annualized cost
savings to both industry and the
2 See the report by the Congressional Research
Service, titled ‘‘LNG as a Maritime Fuel: Prospects
and Policy’’ (dated February 5, 2019) at https://
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45488.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
government of approximately $16,843
using a 7-percent discount rate.
IV. Basis and Purpose
The Ports and Waterways Safety
Authorities (PWSA) (46 U.S.C. chapter
700), authorizes the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is
operating to take certain actions to
advance port, harbor, and coastal
facility safety and security. Specifically,
sections 70011 and 70034 of Title 46 of
the United States Code (U.S.C.)
authorize the Secretary to promulgate
regulations to establish standards for the
handling, loading, unloading, storage,
stowage, and movement of hazardous
materials on a vessel and waterfront
facility on or along U.S. navigable
waters as necessary to protect the vessel,
structure, water, or shore area. The
Secretary has delegated this authority to
the Commandant of the Coast Guard
(DHS Delegation 0170.1(II)(70)). The
purpose of the proposed rule is to revise
existing regulations for the assessment
of LNG fuel facilities by reducing
unnecessary requirements; update
technical standards applicable to
waterfront facilities handling LNG and
LHG; and implement a statutory
provision for waterfront facilities
handling LNG that must complete a
WSA.
V. Background
A. International Maritime Organization
(IMO) Emissions Standards and LNG as
a Marine Fuel
The IMO International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) Annex VI,3 first adopted in
1997, limits the main air pollutants
contained in ships exhaust gas,
including sulfur oxides and nitrous
oxides, and prohibits deliberate
emissions of ozone depleting
substances. MARPOL Annex VI also
provides for the establishment of
Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), which
are waters close to coastlines where
more stringent emissions controls may
be imposed. Under MARPOL Annex VI,
the North American ECA came into
force on August 1, 2012. A possible
option for vessel operators to meet the
more stringent fuel oil sulfur content
standards of the ECA is to install LNGfueled engines, because such engines
emit only trace amounts of sulfur.
In order to comply with these stricter
IMO emissions standards and realize
economic advantages associated with
the increasing LNG supply, there has
been a growing interest by the maritime
3 MARPOL Annex VI has been incorporated into
U.S. law by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
(33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.)
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62653
industry in converting existing vessels
and constructing new vessels to use
LNG as a marine fuel. The maritime
industry is also considering a variety of
methods for supplying LNG to vessels
for use as a marine fuel, including
delivery from vessels (such as barges
and small tank vessels) or from shorebased structures on waterfront facilities
handling LNG (such as storage tanks,
mobile tank trucks, and rail cars).
B. Existing Regulations for Waterfront
Facilities Handling LNG
Existing regulations for waterfront
facilities handling LNG are contained in
33 CFR part 127. Although originally
written to address large quantities of
LNG that are imported or exported as
cargo at large storage facilities,4 33 CFR
part 127, by virtue of the definition of
a waterfront facility handling LNG,5 also
applies to LNG transferred between
vessels and shore-based structures
including tank trucks and rail cars for
use as fuel. Part 127 outlines
requirements pertaining to general
information, general design, equipment,
operations, maintenance, firefighting,
and security.
Section 127.007 contains the Letter of
Intent (LOI) and WSA requirements,
including the Preliminary WSA and
Follow-on WSA requirements. The
WSA examines the risk of transporting
large volumes of LNG through
connected waterways and the transfer of
LNG to or from waterfront facilities
handling LNG. The Coast Guard
developed the WSA requirement to
address safety and security risks
potentially presented by LNG carriers
traveling to or from waterfront facilities
handling LNG.6
The facility owner or operator submits
the LOI and WSA documents to the
Coast Guard. The LOI must contain: (1)
The name, address, and telephone
number of the owner and operator; (2)
the name, address, and telephone
number of the Federal, State, or local
agency having jurisdiction for siting,
construction, and operation; (3) the
name, address, and telephone number of
the facility; (4) the physical location of
the facility; (5) a description of the
facility; (6) the LNG vessels’
characteristics and the frequency of
LNG shipments to or from the facility;
and (7) charts showing waterway
channels and identifying commercial,
industrial, environmentally sensitive,
4 See final rule, titled ‘‘Liquefied Natural Gas
Waterfront Facilities’’ (53 FR 3370, dated February
5, 1988).
5 33 CFR 127.005.
6 See final rule, titled, ‘‘Revision of LNG and LHG
Waterfront Facility General Requirements’’ (75 FR
29420, dated May 26, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62654
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
and residential areas in and adjacent to
the waterway used by the LNG vessels
en route to the facility, within at least
25 kilometers (15.5 miles) of the facility
(33 CFR 127.007(c)).
The Preliminary WSA must contain
an analysis of the following topics: (1)
Port characterization; (2)
characterization of the LNG facility and
the LNG tank vessel route; (3) risk
assessments for maritime safety and
security; (4) risk management strategies;
and (5) resource needs for maritime
safety, security, and response. It must
also contain a section listing
recommended risk mitigation measures
and conclusions (33 CFR 127.007(f)(2)).
This information gives the COTP the
opportunity to identify any issues or
factors that might have been overlooked
when considering the various potential
safety and security impacts the LNG
marine traffic may have on the port and
associated waterways. It also provides
an opportunity for the project sponsor
and the COTP to identify the
stakeholders at the port who should be
consulted when developing the Followon WSA. The Follow-on WSA provides
a complete analysis of the topics
outlined in the Preliminary WSA and
identifies credible security threats and
navigational safety hazards for the LNG
marine traffic, along with appropriate
risk management strategies and the
resources needed to carry them out. The
information obtained in the LOI and
WSA enables the Coast Guard to
provide specific recommendations, in a
Letter of Recommendation (LOR)
described in § 127.009, as to the
suitability of the waterway for LNG
marine traffic to the Federal, State, or
local government agencies having
jurisdiction for siting, construction, and
operation.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Alternative Coast Guard Procedures
Coast Guard regulations in § 127.017
allow facility operators to request
alternative procedures to those in
§ 127.007 if the alternative provides at
least the same degree of safety provided
by the regulations. An owner or operator
seeking to use an alternative procedure
should identify the ‘‘gaps’’ where
requirements cannot be met or are not
appropriate and should explain what
alternatives the Coast Guard should
consider instead. Whenever possible,
owners and operators should reference
existing standards, practices, and
procedures to help substantiate the
request.7
7 See CG–OES Policy Letter No. 02–15, ‘‘Guidance
Related to Vessels and Waterfront Facilities
Conducting LNG Marine Fuel Transfer (Bunkering)
Operations.’’ This document is available at https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Prior to the construction of three LNG
fuel facilities, the Coast Guard met with
the facility owners to discuss Federal
regulations that would apply to their
projects. During those discussions, the
owners indicated that it was
inappropriate for their projects to
conduct a WSA under § 127.007 because
their intended operations did not
include use of the waterway. Unlike
waterfront facilities handling LNG that
receive large quantities of LNG that are
imported or exported as cargo on large
tankships on the waterway, their LNG
fuel facilities would receive LNG from
shore-based sources using tank trucks.
Instead of conducting a WSA for their
projects, they requested to conduct an
ORA focused specifically on their
intended operations.
Based on information provided by
these facility owners that: (1) LNG
would not be delivered to the facility by
a vessel on the waterway; (2) incidents
involving LNG would be limited to the
location of the facility; (3) the quantity
of LNG stored at the facility would be
relatively small compared to larger
waterfront facilities handling LNG that
import or export LNG as cargo; and (4)
the quantity of LNG stored on vessels as
fuel would not pose as much of a safety
concern to the port as larger tankships
that transport LNG to larger waterfront
facilities handling LNG to be imported
or exported as cargo, the Coast Guard
agreed that COTPs could allow the use
of ORAs as an alternative to WSAs
under § 127.017.
Since ORAs and WSAs follow similar
procedures for assessing risk, the Coast
Guard is proposing to modify the scope
of assessments to be conducted for LNG
fuel facilities to focus on operations
solely taking place at the facilities,
provided that LNG is not delivered to
the facilities by LNG tank vessels. If an
LNG fuel facility would receive LNG by
vessel, an assessment of the waterway—
that is, a WSA—would need to be
carried out to determine the impact of
the proposed operations on the port and
waterway.
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under this proposed rule, prospective
applicants seeking authorization to
build, modify, or reactivate an inactive
LNG fuel facility would be allowed to
submit an LOI and an ORA to the Coast
Guard, which would enable us to
provide specific recommendations, in a
www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/
5p/5ps/Operating%20and%20Environmental
%20Standards/OES-2/Policy%20Letters/CG
%20OES%20Policy%20Letter%2002-15
%20signature%20with%20Enclosures.pdf?
ver=2017-07-21-124107-000. See also 80 FR 10131
(Feb. 25, 2015) (notice of availability).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
LOR described in § 127.009, to agencies
having jurisdiction. Eliminating the
requirement to submit an alternative
request and meet with the COTP to
obtain approval before conducting an
ORA in lieu of a WSA would eliminate
unnecessary paperwork associated with
analysis of a waterway not being used
by the facility and provide regulatory
certainty for future LNG fuel facility
project proponents.
By eliminating unnecessary
paperwork and reducing the regulatory
burden on facility owners and operators,
the Coast Guard is promoting the goals
of Executive Orders 13771 and 13777.
Reducing the regulatory burden and
increasing cost savings could increase
the maritime industry’s level of interest
in converting existing vessels and
constructing new vessels that use LNG
as a marine fuel to comply with stricter
emissions standards.
For waterfront facilities handling LNG
that must conduct a WSA under
proposed § 127.007, the proposed rule
would require these facilities to submit
to the Coast Guard, at the time the WSA
and LOI are submitted, information on
the nation of registry for, and the
nationality or citizenship of officers and
crew serving on board, vessels
transporting LNG that are reasonably
anticipated to be servicing those
facilities. This proposed change would
implement the statutory mandate in
section 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2006
(Pub. L. 109–241) requiring the Coast
Guard to provide this information to
FERC when the Coast Guard is operating
as a contributing agency in the FERC
shoreside licensing process for an
onshore or near-shore LNG terminal.
This is the most efficient way to comply
with the statutory requirement that we
provide this information to FERC.
The proposed rule would also update
the technical standards found in the
existing regulations that would be
applicable to waterfront facilities
handling LNG and LHG.
We provide a section-by-section
description in the following paragraphs
of our proposed amendments to 33 CFR
part 127, subparts A through C, in
section number order with topical
headings.
Subpart A—General
Proposed Revisions to Authorities
Listed for Part 127
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
the authority citation for this Part by
removing 33 U.S.C. 1231 and adding, in
its place, 46 U.S.C. 70034. This reflects
the changes made by the Coast Guard
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Authorization Act of 2018,8 which recodified the Ports and Waterways Safety
Program into Title 46 of the U.S.C. The
Coast Guard also proposes to add 46
U.S.C. 70011 to the list of existing
statutory authorities for this Part, to
make it clear that 46 U.S.C. 70011
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1225) authorizes
the Coast Guard to take such action as
is necessary to (1) prevent damage to, or
the destruction of, any bridge or other
structure on or in the navigable waters
of the United States, or any land
structure or shore area immediately
adjacent to such waters; and (2) protect
the navigable waters and the resources
therein from harm resulting from vessel
or structure damage, destruction, or
loss. Authorized actions under this
section include, among other things,
establish standards for the handling,
loading, unloading, storage, stowage,
and movement of hazardous materials
on a vessel or structure on or along U.S.
navigable waters, as necessary to
prevent damage to, or the destruction of,
any bridge or other structure on or in
the navigable waters of the United
States, or any land structure or shore
area immediately adjacent to such
waters; and protect the navigable waters
and the resources therein from harm
resulting from vessel or structure
damage, destruction, or loss.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.001
Applicability
The Coast Guard proposes to remove
the word, ‘‘existing’’ from paragraphs (a)
and (c) because the term as it is
currently defined in § 127.005 does not
cover waterfront facilities handling LNG
constructed after 1988. This is a
problem because if it is not removed,
paragraphs (a) and (c) would only apply
to new waterfront facilities handling
LNG and waterfront facilities handling
LNG that were built before 1988. In
order to ensure paragraphs (a) and (c)
apply to all LNG facilities, the Coast
Guard proposes to remove the term
‘‘existing.’’
The Coast Guard also proposes to
amend paragraph (c) by removing a
reference to § 127.701, which contains
security requirements for the marine
transfer area for LNG of inactive
facilities. These security requirements
are now contained in 33 CFR part 105,
subpart B, and apply to facilities subject
to part 127. The reference to § 127.701
is duplicative and no longer needed.
A new paragraph (f) is proposed to
clarify the standards approved for
incorporation by reference in § 127.003
only apply to facilities constructed,
8 See Public Law 115–282, December 4, 2018, 132
Stat 4192.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
expanded, or modified under a contract
awarded after the implementation date
of the final rule. As used in this section,
we consider ‘‘constructed’’ to mean
construction of a new facility,
‘‘expanded’’ to mean changes to a
facility that was previously constructed
that results in an increase in the storage
capacity or operations at the facility and
‘‘modified’’ to mean changes made to a
facility that was previously constructed
that does not result in increased storage
capacity or operations (e.g., the addition
of a sprinkler system in an area where
one did not previously exist). A facility
being expanded or modified would only
need to apply the applicable new
standards that are involved in the action
to expand or modify the facility. All
other facilities, unless expanded or
modified in accordance with part 127,
would be required to meet previously
applicable standards but may request to
apply later editions of the standards in
accordance with § 127.017.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.003
Incorporation by Reference
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
this section by updating the technical
standards to reflect the most recent
published editions of the standards. We
encourage the use of these updated
standards because they reflect the best
available technologies, practices, and
procedures that are recommended by
consensus bodies and other groups with
experience in the industry. However,
only waterfront facilities handling LNG
and LHG constructed, expanded, or
modified under a contract awarded after
the implementation date of the final rule
would be required to meet the
applicable requirements outlined in the
most recent editions of these standards.
Existing facilities may voluntarily
request authorization to apply the
updated standards, but they will only be
required to apply the standards that
applied to them prior to the
implementation date of the final rule.
The following is the list of the
standards we propose to update:
• American Petroleum Institute (API)
standard, API Recommended Practice
2003, Protection Against Ignitions
Arising Out of Static, Lightning and
Stray Currents, Eighth Edition,
September 2015. This standard presents
the current state of knowledge and
technology in the fields of static
electricity and stray currents applicable
to the prevention of hydrocarbon
ignition in the petroleum industry, and
it is based on both scientific research
and practical experience. The 2015
edition builds on the technically sound
work presented in prior editions. It
emphasizes the need to maintain
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62655
awareness and the continuing need to
develop and use sound procedures for
controlling hazards and minimizing the
possible static ignition risks associated
with handling hydrocarbons.
• American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) standard, ASME
B16.5–2017, Pipe Flanges and Flanged
Fittings, NPS 1⁄2 through NPS 24 Metric/
Inch Standard, November 20, 2017. This
standard covers pressure-temperature
ratings, materials, dimensions,
tolerances, marking, testing, and
methods of designating openings for
pipe flanges and flanged fittings. The
2017 edition adds the use of size NPS
22, and updates materials and working
pressures. The current regulations
reference a 1988 edition of the standard,
including 1992 addenda and errata. But
the current regulations use the term
‘‘ANSI’’ rather than ‘‘ASME.’’ We
propose to correctly identify the current
name of the standard.
• ASME B31.3–2018, Process Piping,
ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31,
August 30, 2019. This standard contains
requirements for piping typically found
in petroleum refineries; chemical,
pharmaceutical, textile, paper,
semiconductor, and cryogenic plants;
and related processing plants and
terminals. It covers materials and
components, design, fabrication,
assembly, erection, examination,
inspection, and testing of piping. The
2018 edition standardizes the use of SI
metric units for some purposes and U.S.
Customary units for others, and
provides a table for conversion of units.
• ASTM standard, ASTM F 1121–87
(Reapproved 2015), Standard
Specification for International Shore
Connections for Marine Fire
Applications, approved May 1, 2015.
This standard covers the specifications
for the design and manufacture of
international shore connections to be
used with marine firefighting systems
during an emergency when a stricken
ship has a system failure. This standard
has continued to be reapproved since
development and has not changed. We
are merely incorporating the most recent
published edition of this standard.
• International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), IEC 60079–29–1,
Edition 2.0, Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 29–1: Gas Detectors—Performance
Requirements of Detectors for
Flammable Gases, July 2016. This
standard specifies general requirements
for construction, testing, and
performance and describes the test
methods that apply to portable,
transportable, and fixed apparatus for
the detection and measurement of
flammable gas or vapor concentrations
with air. This standard superseded
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
62656
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ANSI S12.13, Part I, Performance
Requirements, Combustible Gas
Detectors (1986 Edition), which is
currently incorporated by reference in
the regulations.
• National Fire Protection Agency
(NFPA) 10, Standard for Portable Fire
Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective
April 21, 2017. This standard applies to
the selection, installation, inspection,
maintenance, recharging, and testing of
portable extinguishing equipment and
Class D extinguishing agents. The 2018
edition includes clarifications on
electronic monitoring, obsolete
extinguishers, extinguishers in areas
containing oxidizers, extinguisher signs,
and mounting equipment and cabinets.
• NFPA 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code, 2018
Edition, effective September 6, 2017.
This standard applies to the storage,
handling, and use of flammable and
combustible liquids, including waste
liquids. The 2018 edition incorporates
essential safety updates and references
to current UL standards, as well as
completely revised requirements for
general purpose warehouses.
• NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire
Prevention During Welding, Cutting and
Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective
July 15, 2019. This standard covers
provisions to prevent injury, loss of life,
and loss of property from fire or
explosion as a result of hot work. In the
2019 edition, the scope was modified to
clarify that the standard is intended to
be used for preventing injuries and not
just loss of life during hot work
operations. The purpose was also
revised to clarify that the standard
provides requirements for everyone
involved in hot work operations.
• NFPA 59A, Standard for the
Production, Storage, and Handling of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019
Edition, effective November 25, 2018.
This standard provides minimum fire
protection, safety, and related
requirements for the location, design,
construction, security, operation, and
maintenance of LNG plants. The 2019
edition presents a reorganization of the
requirements for plant siting and layout
to facilitate better focus and
implementation of the requirements
contained in the standard. This edition
also includes new requirements under
which a single-wall ASME container
with supplementary design and
fabrication requirements can be safely
implemented for storage at small-scale
LNG facilities.
• NFPA 70, National Electrical Code,
2017 Edition, effective August 24, 2016.
The provisions of this standard apply to
the design, modification, construction,
inspection, maintenance, and testing of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
electrical systems, installations and
equipment. The 2017 edition addresses
the advancement of privately-owned
wind and solar power generation and
distribution equipment, including
coverage of higher voltage systems that
were once only the utilities’ domain.
• NFPA 251, Standard Methods of
Tests of Fire Resistance of Building
Construction and Materials, 2006
Edition, effective August 18, 2005. This
standard provides methods of fire tests
applicable to assemblies of masonry
units and to composite assemblies of
structural materials for buildings,
including bearing and other walls,
partitions, columns, girders, beams,
slabs, and composite slab and beam
assemblies for floors and roofs. This
standard also applies to other
assemblies and structural units that
constitute permanent integral parts of a
finished building. The time temperature
curve of NFPA 251 referenced in the
definition of fire endurance rating in
§ 127.005 has not changed. We are
merely incorporating the most recent
published edition of NFPA 251.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to
add three new standards to the list of
technical standards incorporated by
reference in § 127.003 to provide
requirements to LNG fuel facilities on
conducting ORAs. The proposed new
standards are—
• Det Norske Veritas Germanischer
Lloyd (DNV GL), Recommended
Practice, DNVGL–RP–G105,
Development and Operation of
Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkering
Facilities, October 2015 Edition. This
standard provides guidance to the
industry on development,
organizational, technical, functional,
and operational issues in order to
ensure global compatibility and secure a
high level of safety, integrity, and
reliability for LNG bunkering (fueling)
facilities.
• International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), ISO/TS
18683:2015(E), Guidelines for Systems
and Installations for Supply of LNG as
Fuel to Ships, First Edition, 15 January
2015. This standard gives guidance on
the minimum requirements for the
design and operation of the LNG
bunkering (fueling) facility, including
the interface between the LNG supply
facilities and receiving ship.
• ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum
and Natural Gas Industries—Installation
and Equipment for Liquefied Natural
Gas—Ship-to-Shore Interface and Port
Operations, First Edition, 15 December
2010. This standard specifies the
requirements for ship, terminal, and
port service providers to ensure the safe
transit of an LNG carrier through the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
port area and the safe and efficient
transfer of its cargo.
The Coast Guard also proposes to
amend the introductory text to § 127.003
by adding a reference at the end of the
paragraph to refer to § 127.017 for
alternative compliance methods. We
propose this change to clarify that later
editions of the standards listed in
§ 127.003 could be considered as an
acceptable alternative if they can be
shown to provide a degree of protection,
safety, or performance equal to or better
than the standard we recognize and
prior approval is obtained by the COTP.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.005
Definitions
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
§ 127.005 by adding a new definition for
‘‘LNG fuel facility’’ and by revising the
existing definitions for ‘‘Facility’’ and
‘‘Fire endurance rating.’’ We are
proposing to add the definition for
‘‘LNG fuel facility’’ to describe
waterfront facilities that handle LNG for
the sole purpose of providing LNG from
shore-based structures to vessels for use
as a marine fuel, and that does not
transfer LNG to or receive LNG from
vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk
as cargo. We are proposing to revise the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ to specify it
includes LNG fuel facilities. The
proposed revised definition of ‘‘fire
endurance rating’’ is being amended to
reference the 2006 edition of NPFA 251;
however, the time-temperature curve
referenced in the 2006 edition of NFPA
251 remains the same as in the current
incorporated by reference 1990 edition.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.007 Letter
of Intent and Waterway Suitability
Assessment for Waterfront Facilities
Handling LNG or LHG
The proposed rule would amend
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) by removing
the word ‘‘existing’’ from each
paragraph because the term—as it is
currently defined in § 127.005—does
not cover waterfront facilities handling
LNG and LHG constructed after 1988
and 1996, respectively. By removing the
word, ‘‘existing’’ from paragraphs (a),
(b), and (e) it clarifies that the LOI and
WSA requirements apply to the new
construction or expansion of any LNG
or LHG facility that would result in an
increase in the size and/or frequency of
LNG or LHG marine traffic on the
waterway.
The proposed rule would redesignate
existing paragraphs (g) and (h), as
paragraphs (h) and (i). We would also
add a new paragraph (g) to require an
owner or operator intending to build a
new LNG facility to submit the WSA no
later than the date that the owner or
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
operator files a pre-filing request with
FERC under 18 CFR 153 or 157, and
include the nation of registry for, and
the nationality or citizenship of officers
and crew serving on board, vessels
transporting natural gas that are
reasonably anticipated to be servicing
the LNG facility. We are proposing this
change to assist us in meeting our
obligation under § 304(c)(2) of the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–241), which
requires the Coast Guard, when
operating as a contributing agency in the
FERC shoreside licensing process for an
onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to
provide this information to FERC.
Finally, in this section the Coast
Guard proposes to add a new paragraph
(j) to clarify that an owner or operator
intending to build an LNG fuel facility,
modify an LNG fuel facility, or
reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility,
may comply with the new requirements
proposed in § 127.008 in lieu of the
requirements in § 127.007.
Proposed Addition of § 127.008 Letter of
Intent and Operational Risk Assessment
for LNG Fuel Facilities
The Coast Guard proposes to add this
new section, which would contain the
LOI and new ORA submission
requirements for owners or operators of
LNG fuel facilities. Since an LNG fuel
facility would not receive LNG from
vessels, it is not associated with LNG
tank vessel traffic for which the WSA is
designed. Instead, an analysis of the
safety and security of the marine
transfer operation is appropriate. ORAs
are suitable for evaluating and
identifying risks and mitigation
measures for situations involving
quantities and delivery methods of LNG
that are much smaller than those
associated with large quantities of LNG
that are imported or exported as cargo
at large storage facilities. In the event
that an LNG fuel facility would receive
LNG by vessel using the waterway, a
WSA would need to be carried out to
determine the impact of the proposed
operations on the port and waterway.
The Coast Guard anticipates this
proposed new section would help lead
to reduced costs for LNG fuel facilities
because owners or operators would no
longer have to submit an alternative
request and meet with the COTP to
obtain approval before conducting an
ORA in lieu of a WSA.
Proposed new paragraph (a) would
require an owner or operator seeking to
build an LNG fuel facility, modify the
construction of any LNG fuel facility, or
reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility
electing to complete an ORA in lieu of
a WSA to submit an LOI to the Coast
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Guard at least 1 year before LNG transfer
operations begin. We propose to allow
an owner or operator the option of
completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA.
This approach would give owners and
operators the ability to make
appropriate business decisions in order
to maintain flexibility for future
operations without compromising
marine safety. An owner or operator of
an LNG fuel facility may initially
provide LNG from shore-based
structures to vessels for use as a marine
fuel from LNG transported to the facility
via a tank truck or rail car. This type of
operation would require completion of
an ORA only. However, at a future time
the same facility may elect to receive
LNG from vessels using the waterway,
which would then require completion of
a WSA to ensure potential impacts on
the waterway due to increased LNG
vessel traffic are fully assessed.
Proposed new paragraph (b) would
require the LOI to contain the
requirements listed in existing
§ 127.007(c)(1) through (c)(5), as
follows: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the owner and
operator; (2) the name, address, and
telephone number of the agency having
jurisdiction for siting, construction, and
operation; (3) the name, address, and
telephone number of the facility; (4) the
physical location of the facility; and (5)
a description of the facility. If there is
any change in the information provided
in the LOI, or if no LNG fuel transfer
operations are scheduled within the
next 12 months, proposed new
paragraph (c) would require the owner
or operator to notify the Coast Guard in
writing within 15 days of discovering
this information.
Proposed new paragraph (d)(1) would
establish that the ORA must be carried
out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO
18683:2015(E) and Appendix D of
DNVGL–RP–G105, or Chapter 19 of
NFPA 59A. The Coast Guard selected
these standards because the ISO
standard and the DNVGL–RP were
created specifically to address LNG fuel
facilities and are complementary of each
other (e.g., DNVGL–RP refers to ISO
18683). NFPA 59A was selected because
it is the primary standard associated
with how LNG facilities are built and
operated in the United States. This
paragraph would also allow an owner or
operator of an LNG fuel facility the
ability to seek authorization by the
Coast Guard to use another voluntary
consensus standard for risk assessment
acceptable to the Coast Guard. The
proposed ORA would also have to
consider possible factors affecting the
ship/shore interface and port operations
described in Section 6 of ISO
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62657
28460:2010(E), according to proposed
new paragraph (d)(2). The standards
referenced in proposed new paragraphs
(d)(1) and (d)(2) contain requirements
relative to conducting risk assessments
that are focused on providing LNG as
fuel (bunkering operations).
Proposed Revisions to § 127.009 Letter
of Recommendation
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
this section to accommodate an LOR
based on an ORA. After the COTP
receives the information and analysis
under the LOI and ORA requirements in
§ 127.008, the COTP will issue a LOR as
to the operational safety and security of
the LNG fuel facility to the Federal,
State, or local government agencies
having jurisdiction for siting,
construction, and operation of the
facility and send a copy to the owner or
operator of the proposed LNG fuel
facility. Currently, a LOR is issued after
the COTP receives the information and
analysis under the LOI and WSA
requirements in § 127.007. The
proposed amendment would add the
issuance of a LOR when the Coast Guard
receives the information and analysis
under proposed new § 127.008.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.015
Appeals
The Coast Guard proposes to revise
paragraph (c)(1) to update the mailing
address for submitting appeals of
District Commander rulings related to
actions taken by Coast Guard officials
under part 127. We also propose to
revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to reflect
a name change for the office where
appeals should be sent.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.017
Alternatives
We propose to amend paragraph (a) to
clarify that the COTP may consider
alternative compliance methods. Newer
editions of a standard we incorporate by
reference in § 127.003 could be
considered as acceptable alternatives if
they could be shown to provide a degree
of protection, safety, or performance
equal to or better than the incorporated
standard.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.019
Operations Manual and Emergency
Manual: Procedures for Examination
We proposed to delete the word
‘‘existing’’ from paragraph (b) to clarify
that all waterfront facilities handling
LNG and LHG—regardless of when they
were constructed—must submit the
information required in § 127.019.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62658
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Subpart B—Waterfront Facilities
Handling Liquefied Natural Gas
Proposed Revisions to § 127.101 Design
and Construction: General
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
this section to reflect the correct section
references in the 2019 edition of NFPA
59A, which is proposed to replace the
1994 edition. The standards referenced
involve plant siting and layout, piping
systems and components,
instrumentation and electrical services,
transfer systems for LNG, refrigerants,
other flammable fluids, and seismic
design of LNG plants.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.107
Electrical Power Systems
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
paragraph (a) to add the text
‘‘(incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003)’’ to direct the reader to more
details about the material incorporated
by reference. Additionally, the Coast
Guard proposes to amend paragraph (c)
to reflect the correct section references
as contained in the 2017 edition of the
standard. This change is needed to
ensure that auxiliary generators and
other sources of power comply with the
latest edition of NFPA 70, as indicated
in Section 700.12 of this standard.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.201 Sensing
and Alarm Systems
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) by
referencing section 16.4 of the 2019
edition of NFPA 59A. We also propose
amending paragraph (c)(1) by
referencing section 500.5(B)(1) of the
2017 edition of NFPA 70, which defines
a Class 1, Division 1 location. The
current regulations reference section 9–
4 in the 1994 edition of NFPA 59A and
section 500–5(a) in the 1993 edition of
NFPA 70.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Revisions to § 127.313 Bulk
Storage
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
paragraph (b) by referencing the 2018
edition of NFPA 30. The current
regulations reference Chapter 4 of the
1993 edition, which pertains to the
storage of containers and portable tanks.
The standard has been updated over the
years, and information that was once
part of Chapter 4 has been relocated to
different chapters throughout the
standard. Accordingly, we can no longer
reference a specific chapter and propose
to adopt the standard in total.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.405 Repairs
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) by referencing
the 2019 edition of NFPA 59A. In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
paragraph (b) we also propose to
reference the 2019 edition of NFPA 51B.
The current regulations reference the
1994 edition of NFPA 59A and the 1994
edition of NFPA 51B. Section 10.4.3 of
NFPA 59A and NFPA 51B relate to
repairs and identify specific
requirements for welding and brazing.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.603
Portable Fire Extinguishers
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
paragraph (a) by updating NFPA 59A to
the 2019 edition and NFPA 10 to the
2018 edition. The current regulations
reference the 1994 edition of NFPA 10.
Section 16.6.1 of NFPA 59A and
Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 relate to portable
fire extinguishers and identify specific
requirements for portable and wheeled
fire extinguishers.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.611
International Shore Connection
In this section, the Coast Guard
proposes to change ‘‘ASTM F 1121’’ to
‘‘ASTM F 1121–87’’ to reference the
standard by its correct designation and
to reference the 2015 edition of this
standard. The standard ASTM F 1121–
87 provides specifications for
international shore connections used in
marine fire applications.
Proposed Removal of § 127.701 Security
on Existing Facilities; § 127.703 Access
to the Marine Transfer Area for LNG;
§ 127.705 Security Systems; § 127.707
Security Personnel; § 127.709 Protective
Enclosures; and § 127.711
Communications
The Coast Guard proposes to remove
these sections from the CFR. These
regulations are no longer needed
because facilities regulated under part
127 are required to comply with the
maritime security regulations for
facilities contained in 33 CFR part 105.
See 33 CFR 105.105(a)(1). Therefore, it
is no longer necessary to have security
regulations for facilities in part 127.
Subpart C—Waterfront Facilities
Handling Liquefied Hazardous Gas
Proposed Revisions to § 127.1101 Piping
Systems
In paragraph (a), the Coast Guard
proposes to change ‘‘ASME B31.3’’ to
‘‘ASME B.31.3–2018’’ to reference the
standard by its correct designation and
to reference the 2018 edition of this
standard instead of the 1993 edition.
This standard pertains to process piping
and contains requirements for piping
typically found in petroleum refineries,
including chemical, pharmaceutical,
textile, paper, semiconductor, cryogenic
plants, and related processing plants
and terminals. We also propose to
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reference § 127.003 with respect to the
reference to API Recommended Practice
2003 (API RP 2003) in paragraph (h).
This standard, as updated in 2015,
outlines requirements for protection
against ignitions arising out of static,
lightning, and stray currents.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.1102
Transfer Hoses and Loading Arms
In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), the Coast
Guard proposes to change American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)
standard ‘‘ANSI B16.5’’ to ‘‘ASME
B16.5–2017’’ to reference the standard
by its correct designation and to
reference the 2017 edition of the
standard. This standard outlines design
specifications for pipe flanges and
flanged fittings. The current regulations
reference a 1988 edition of the standard,
but now uses the term ‘‘ANSI’’ rather
than ‘‘ASME.’’
Proposed Revisions to § 127.1103 Piers
and Wharves and § 127.1105 Layout and
Spacing of Marine Transfer Area for
LHG
The Coast Guard proposes to remove
the word ‘‘existing’’ from these sections
to clarify that the regulations in
§§ 127.1103 and 127.1105 apply to new
construction in the marine transfer area
on all LHG facilities and not just to
‘‘existing’’ LHG facilities.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.1203 Gas
Detection
In paragraph (a), the Coast Guard
proposes to change ‘‘ANSI S12.13, Part
I’’ to ‘‘IEC 60079–29–1’’ to reference the
name of the standard by which the
original ANSI standard is now known.
The current regulations reference the
1986 edition of ANSI S.12.13, Part I. We
propose to incorporate by reference the
July 2016 edition of IEC 60079–29–1,
which pertains to performance
requirements of detectors for flammable
gases.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.1313
Storage of Hazardous Materials
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
paragraph (b) by referencing the 2018
edition of NFPA 30. The current
regulations reference Chapter 4 of the
1993 edition, which pertains to the
storage of containers and portable tanks.
The standard has been updated over the
years, and information that was once
part of Chapter 4 has been relocated to
different chapters throughout the
standard. Accordingly, we can no longer
reference a specific chapter and intend
to adopt the standard in total.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VII. Incorporation by Reference
Proposed Revisions to § 127.1501
General
The Coast Guard proposes to remove
the word ‘‘existing’’ to clarify that
§ 127.1501 applies to new construction
on all LHG facilities and not just to
‘‘existing’’ LHG facilities.
Proposed Revisions to § 127.1511
International Shore Connection
In this section, the Coast Guard
proposes to change ‘‘ASTM F 1121’’ to
‘‘ASTM F 1121–87’’ to reference the
standard by its correct designation and
to reference the 2015 edition of this
standard. The standard ASTM F 1121–
87 provides specifications for
international shore connections used in
marine fire applications.
Technical Changes
In the following sections, we propose
to remove the word ‘‘shall,’’ and replace
it with the word ‘‘must’’ to more clearly
convey these sections contain
requirements: §§ 127.011, 127.019,
127.301, 127.309, 127.311, 127.313,
127.315, 127.317, 127.319, 127.321,
127.401, 127.403, 127.405, 127.407,
127.409, 127.613, 127.615, 127.617,
127.1207, 127.1301, 127.1302, 127.1309,
127.1311, 127.1313, 127.1315, 127.1317,
127.1319, 127.1321, 127.1325, 127.1401,
127.1403, 127.1405, 127.1407, 127.1409,
127.1601, 127.1603, and 127.1605.
Additionally, in §§ 127.005, 127.101,
127.107, 127.201, 127.313, 127.405,
127.603, 127.611, 127.1101, 127.1102,
127.1107, 127.1203, 127.1313, 127.1405,
and 127.1503, we propose to add the
text ‘‘(incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003)’’ to direct the reader to more
details about the materials incorporated
by reference in the ‘‘Incorporation by
reference’’ section contained in
§ 127.003. In § 127.107, we propose to
delete ‘‘National Electrical Code’’ and
insert ‘‘NFPA’’ in its place to reflect the
correct name of NFPA 70.
Material proposed for incorporation
by reference appears in § 127.003. For
information about how to view this
material, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. Copies of the material are
available from the sources listed in
§ 127.003. Before publishing a binding
rule, we will submit this material to the
Director of the Federal Register for
approval of the incorporation by
reference.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. Executive
Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs and provides
that ‘‘for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the
cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.’’
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not designated this proposed
rule a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, OMB has not
reviewed it. DHS considers this rule to
be an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action. See the OMB
Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance
62659
Implementing Executive Order 13771,
titled ‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs’’’ (April 5,
2017). Details on the estimated cost
savings of this proposed rule can be
found in the rule’s regulatory analysis
below.
We performed our regulatory analysis
for this proposed rule based on the
Coast Guard’s PWSA authority to
address safety and security issues raised
by the increased use of LNG by
maritime vessels. The Coast Guard is
proposing to:
• Modify current regulations to allow
LNG fuel facilities that do not receive
LNG from vessels to conduct an ORA
instead of the WSA without first
obtaining COTP approval per existing
§ 127.007;
• Update the technical standards
currently referenced in 33 CFR part 127
to reflect the most recent published
editions;
• Amend the existing regulations by
removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and
replacing it with the word ‘‘must’’; and
• Require a waterfront facility
handling LNG that must submit a WSA
and LOI (LNG import/export facility) 9
to provide information to the Coast
Guard on the nation of registry for, and
the nationality or citizenship of officers
and crew serving on board, vessels
transporting natural gas that are
reasonably anticipated to be servicing
that facility if that information is known
at the time the facilities submit the
documents to the COTP.
Table 1 of this analysis provides a
summary of the affected population,
cost savings, no cost changes, and
unquantified benefits of this proposed
rule. The Coast Guard estimates an
annualized cost savings to industry of
$16,157 (with a 7-percent discount rate),
and an annualized cost savings to the
government of $690 (with a 7-percent
discount rate), for a total annualized
cost savings of $16,847 in 2018 dollars,
using a 7-percent discount rate.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Category
Summary
Applicability .........................................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Affected Population .............................................
Costs Savings to Industry (7-percent discount
rate).
Costs Savings to Government (7-percent discount rate).
9 For the purpose of simplification, in this
Regulatory Analysis we refer to a waterfront facility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
New LNG import/export facilities.
New LNG Fuel Facilities.
New LHG Facilities.
20 new LNG import/export facilities over the 10-year analysis period.
10 new LNG Fuel Facilities over the 10-year analysis period.
30 new LHG facilities over the 10-year analysis period.
10-year: ($113,482).*
✓ Annualized: ($16,157) *.
✓ 10-year: ($4,845) *.
handling LNG that must submit a WSA as an ‘‘LNG
import/export facility’’ because current U.S. LNG
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
operations involve only the import or export of LNG
as cargo.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued
Category
Summary
Perpetual period total cost savings in 2016 dollars discounted back to 2016 (7-percent discount rate).
No cost changes .................................................
.........................................................................
✓ Annualized: ($690) *.
✓ Annualized: ($11,527).
✓ Update incorporated technical standards to reflect the most recent published editions.
✓ Require the LOI of a new LNG import/export facility to include information on the nation of
registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels
transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility.
✓
* Costs are in 2018 Dollars.
Affected Population
There are currently 12 existing LNG
import/export facilities, 3 existing LNG
fuel facilities, and 106 existing LHG
facilities that are regulated under 33
CFR part 127. Table 2 presents the
projected number of LNG import/export
facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG
facilities over the 10-year analysis
period. Based on the Coast Guard’s
Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database on
activation dates of the 3 existing LNG
fuel facilities and the projected
activation dates of 1 LNG fuel facility
under construction, the Coast Guard
estimates that 10 new LNG fuel facilities
would be built during the 10-year
analysis period, or 1 annually.10 Using
MISLE data on existing LNG import/
export facilities, and FERCs list of
approved and proposed facilities, the
Coast Guard estimates that 20 new LNG
import/export facilities would be built
during the 10-year analysis period, or 2
annually.11 Using MISLE data, the Coast
Guard estimates that 30 new LHG
facilities would be built during the 10year analysis period, or 3 annually.
However, as noted in the supporting
statements for the OMB-approved
Information Collection Request (ICR)
under Control Number 1625–0049, the
Coast Guard expects these new LHG
facilities to replace existing facilities for
a static total population of 106
facilities.12 If you have comments about
these population estimates, please
submit comments identified by docket
number USCG–2019–0444 using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Table 2 contains the number of new
facilities to become operational over a
10-year period of analysis.
TABLE 2—TOTAL FACILITIES BY YEAR
LNG import/export facilities
Year
Existing
facilities
1 .......
2 .......
3 .......
4 .......
5 .......
6 .......
7 .......
8 .......
9 .......
10 .....
New
facilities
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
LHG Facilities
Existing
facilities
Total
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Cost Analysis
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Industry Cost Savings
The Coast Guard proposes to add new
§ 127.008, which would allow
businesses that intend to build an LNG
fuel facility, modify an existing LNG
fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive
LNG fuel facility to complete an LOI
and ORA instead of an LOI and a WSA
under § 127.007. The Coast Guard
determined that conducting an ORA is
more appropriate than conducting a
10 The first LNG fuel facility in the U.S. became
operational in 2016. The second and third became
operational in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The
fourth facility is anticipated to start operation by
the end of 2020.
11 Based on FERCs website on approved and
proposed LNG import/export facilities, 2 facilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
New
facilities
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LNG fuel facilities
Existing
facilities
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
New
facilities
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
Retiring
facilities
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Total
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
WSA because the waterfront facilities
are handling LNG for the sole purpose
of providing LNG from shore-based
structures to vessels for use as a marine
fuel, and they do not transfer LNG to or
receive LNG from vessels capable of
carrying LNG in bulk as cargo. The ORA
is focused on the safety and security
associated with shore-based operations
within the marine transfer area, whereas
a WSA focuses more on the risks and
vulnerabilities of the waterway
associated with an LNG import/export
facility. Although ORAs and WSAs
follow similar procedures for assessing
risk, the Coast Guard determined that
the scope of the assessment for an LNG
fuel facility could be narrowed to focus
on operations solely taking place at the
facility.
Currently, LNG fuel facilities have the
option of submitting an alternative
request and completing a modified WSA
or ORA that focuses on operational risk,
or the option of completing a traditional
would become active by the end of 2020, 1 facility
would become active in 2021, 2 facilities would
become active in 2022, 3 facilities would become
active in 2023, and 1 facility would become active
in 2024. Hence, the Coast Guard has determined
that, on average, 2 new LNG import/export facilities
would become active annually. See https://
www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/overview/
lng.
12 The supporting statement for the OMBapproved Information Collection Request (ICR) with
a Control Number of 1625–0049 can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG2016-0258-0002.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
WSA that focuses on waterway traffic,
security, and navigational hazards in
addition to operational risk. As noted in
the ‘‘affected population’’ section of this
analysis, there are currently three active
LNG fuel facilities and one other LNG
fuel facility that is under construction.
Of these four facilities, three submitted
alternative requests and were granted
permission to conduct an ORA under
existing alternative methods because the
Coast Guard determined that an ORA
was more appropriate for their intended
LNG operations. The other LNG fuel
facility chose to complete a WSA and
thus did not submit an alternative
request. Based on this background
information and discussions with
subject matter experts (SMEs) in the
Coast Guard Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards (CG–OES), we
estimate that 75 percent of the LNG fuel
facilities submitted an alternative
request and completed an ORA and the
62661
$47.32 for a clerk ($28.68 × 1.65) and
about $125.32 for a manager ($75.95 ×
1.65).14
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates
the labor cost of completing an
alternative request to be about $1,097,
which includes $94.64 in clerical labor
cost (2 clerical hours × $47.32 per hour)
and $1,002.56 in managers labor cost (8
managerial hours × $125.32 per hour).
With the proposed rule, LNG fuel
facilities would no longer submit an
alternative request to complete an ORA;
therefore, each new facility would have
a one-time cost savings of $1,097 (we
show the cost occurs annually because
of the assumption of one new facility
entering service each year). As shown in
table 3, given that 75 percent of the new
facilities would submit an alternative
request, the Coast Guard estimates the
annualized cost savings to industry to
be about $823 using a 7-percent
discount rate.
other 25 percent completed a WSA (see
Table 3 below). If you have comments
concerning these estimates, please
submit comments identified by docket
number USCG–2019–0444 using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
According to the OMB-approved ICR
for LNG and LHG facilities with an
OMB Control Number of 1625–0049,
completing an alternative request
requires 2 clerical hours and 8
managerial hours. The mean hourly
wage rates for clerks and managers were
obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). The BLS reports that
the mean hourly wage rates for clerks
and managers were $28.68 and $75.95
in 2018, respectively.13 To account for
the cost of employee benefits, such as
vacation time and health insurance, we
multiplied the mean hourly wage rates
by a load factor of 1.65, resulting in a
loaded mean hourly wage rate of about
TABLE 3—DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS TO INDUSTRY OF NO LONGER COMPLETING AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION
[$2018]
Year
Total change
in cost
Total number
of facilities
completing
alternative
Total cost
savings
Cost savings
discounted at 3%
Cost savings
discounted at 7%
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) = (b) × (c)
(e) = (d) ÷ (1.03) (a)
(f) = (d) ÷ (1.07) (a)
1 ...........................................................................
2 ...........................................................................
3 ...........................................................................
4 ...........................................................................
5 ...........................................................................
6 ...........................................................................
7 ...........................................................................
8 ...........................................................................
9 ...........................................................................
10 .........................................................................
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
$1,097
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
$823
$823
$823
$823
$823
$823
$823
$823
$823
$823
$799
$776
$753
$731
$710
$689
$669
$650
$631
$612
$769
$719
$672
$628
$587
$548
$512
$479
$448
$418
Total ..............................................................
........................
........................
$8,229
$7,020
$5,780
Annualized .............................................
........................
........................
........................
$823
$823
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
As part of requesting an alternative
approval to conduct an ORA, the
requesting party would meet with the
COTP to discuss the alternative. These
meetings often require representatives of
the requesting firm to travel to meet
with the COTP. For this reason, the
travel costs associated with these
meetings mainly depend on the distance
between the facility and the firm’s
headquarters. Review of the
headquarters locations and the site
locations of existing and under
construction LNG fuel facilities in our
MISLE database suggests that 75 percent
of the facilities are approximately an 80-
mile round trip drive from the COTP;
therefore, the Coast Guard assumes the
representatives of these facilities would
drive to the meeting. Flight travel would
be required for visits to the other 25
percent of facilities.15 Moreover,
discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in
the CG–OES revealed that a meeting
13 The Coast Guard used 2018 wage data from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational
Employment Statistics for the natural gas
distribution sector using the North American
Industry Classification System with an industry
code of 221200. Readers can view the wage rates at
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/naics4_
221200.htm. Note that we used the occupational
code of Information and Record Clerks, OC 43–
4000, as a proxy for the labor category ‘‘clerk’’, and
the occupational code of Architectural and
Engineering Managers, OC 11–9041, as a proxy for
the labor category ‘‘manager’’ as a manager with
some engineering knowledge is expected to be
involved in completing the alternative request.
14 To obtain the load factor, we divided the total
cost for employers by the wages and salaries of
private workers for the utility sector in December
2018, or $61.87/$37.60 = 1.65. Readers can find this
information in Table 10 of the Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation December 2018 News
Release available at https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/archives/ecec_03192019.pdf.
15 Of the four LNG fuel facilities (three existing
and one projected to be operational in the future),
three of the facilities are, on average, within an 80mile round trip from their respective headquarters.
One facility located in Jacksonville, FL, is an
approximately 1,700-mile round trip from its
headquarters’ location in Houston, TX. Based on
this information, we assume that 75 percent of
participants would drive while the other 25 percent
would fly.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
would last for an average of 2 hours and
involves two managerial employees, one
technical employee (engineer) and one
outside consultant hired by the firm.
The Coast Guard estimates that it
would take approximately 2 hours to
complete the 80-mile round trip drive,
and including driving time, we estimate
the duration of the meeting would take
about 4 work hours. The BLS reported
a mean hourly wage rate for an engineer
to be $51.33 in 2018; using a load factor
of 1.65, we obtained a loaded mean
hourly wage rate of about $84.69 ($51.33
× 1.65).16 Discussions with industry
consultants revealed that the mean
hourly wage rate for a consultant
completing WSAs and ORAs for LNG
fuel facilities was about $229 in 2017.17
Using the inflation factor of 1.0225, the
Coast Guard estimates the consultant
mean hourly wage rate to be about $234
in 2018 dollars.18
The Coast Guard estimates the total
labor cost per meeting when industry
representatives drive to the COTP to be
about $2,277 annually, which is the sum
of $338.76 in engineer’s labor cost (4
hours × $84.69), $1,002.56 in manager’s
labor cost (2 managers × 4 hours ×
$125.32), and $936 for the consultant’s
labor cost (4 hours × $234).
To calculate the cost of driving to the
COTP’s facility, the Coast Guard used
the 2018 General Services
Administration (GSA) reimbursable rate
for personal vehicles, $0.54 per mile,
which considers the cost of fuel,
depreciation, maintenance, and
insurance.19 Accordingly, the Coast
Guard estimates that an 80-mile round
trip drive to the COTP costs about
$43.20 (80 miles × $0.54 per mile)
annually.
With the proposed rule, industry
representatives would no longer need to
drive to meet with the COTP to submit
and discuss the alternative, resulting in
an annual cost savings of $2,321 per
meeting ($43 driving cost + $2,277 in
labor cost). As shown in table 4, given
that about 56.5 percent of the new LNG
fuel facilities would drive to the COTP,
the Coast Guard estimates the
annualized cost savings to industry of
no longer having to drive to the COTP
to discuss an alternative request to be
about $1,299 using a 7-percent discount
rate.20 The Coast Guard estimates the
discounted cost savings to industry of
no longer driving to meet with a COTP
to be about $9,122 over a 10-year period
of analysis using a 7-percent discount
rate.
TABLE 4—DISCOUNTED INDUSTRY COST SAVINGS FOR NO LONGER MEETING WITH COTP (Driving)
[$2018]
Year
Travel cost
Labor cost
Total change
in cost
Total number
of facilities *
Cost savings
Cost savings
discounted at 3%
Cost savings
discounted at 7%
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) = (b) + (c)
(e)
(f) = (d) × (e)
(g) = (f) ÷ (1.03) (a)
(h) = (f) ÷ (1.07) (a)
1 ...............................
2 ...............................
3 ...............................
4 ...............................
5 ...............................
6 ...............................
7 ...............................
8 ...............................
9 ...............................
10 .............................
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$43.20
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,277
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
$2,321
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,299
$1,262
$1,225
$1,189
$1,155
$1,121
$1,088
$1,057
$1,026
$996
$967
$1,214
$1,135
$1,061
$991
$927
$866
$809
$756
$707
$661
Total ..................
....................
....................
........................
........................
$12,995
$11,085
$9,127
....................
....................
........................
........................
........................
$1,299
$1,299
Annualized
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* The fraction of facilities submitting an alternative for an ORA (0.75) multiplied by the fraction of industry representatives driving to the COTP
(0.75).
As stated above, 25 percent of the
facilities submitting alternative requests
would need to fly to meet with the
COTP. The Coast Guard estimates that,
including travel time, the trip would
take approximately 12 work hours.
Accordingly, the labor cost per meeting
would be about $6,832, which is the
sum of $1,016 for an engineer’s labor
cost (12 hours × $84.69 per hour),
$3,008 for a manager’s labor cost (2
managers × 12 hours × $125.32 per
hour), and $2,808 for a consultant’s
labor cost (12 hours × $234 per hour).
To calculate the cost of flying to the
COTP’s facility, the Coast Guard first
computed the cost of a plane ticket,
hotel, rental car, and per diem. The
Coast Guard estimates the cost of each
round trip flight (non-stop) to be about
$350, for a total flight cost of $1,400 (4
flight tickets × $350 per flight ticket).21
16 The Coast Guard calculated an engineer’s mean
hourly wage using 2018 wage data from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational
Employment Statistics for the natural gas
distribution sector using the North American
Industry Classification System with an industry
code of 221200. Readers can use the link https://
www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/naics4_221200.htm.
Note that the occupational code for engineers is OC
17–2000.
17 Discussion with consultants reveal that, on
average, in 2017, completing a WSA costs $114,585
and 500 hours. Based on this information, the Coast
Guard estimates the mean consultant wage rate to
be about $229.17 ($114,585/500 hours = $229.17
per hour) in 2017.
18 To obtain the inflation factor, we divided the
GDP deflator for 2018 (110.382) by the GDP deflator
for 2017 (107.948), or 110.382/107.948 = 1.0225.
19 Readers can view the 2018 reimbursable rates
for personal vehicles at: https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2018-01-03/pdf/2017-28394.pdf.
20 We obtained 56.25 percent by multiplying the
proportion of facilities submitting alternative (75
percent) by the proportion driving to the COTP (75
percent). i.e., 0.75 × 0.75 = 0.5625.
21 U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(https://www.bts.gov/content/national-leveldomestic-average-fare-series) reports the average
cost of a domestic U.S. flight on a quarterly basis.
The Coast Guard estimates the mean cost of
domestic flight to be $349.56 in 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62663
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The Coast Guard assumes that each
individual would spend a total of 1
night in a hotel at a cost of $106 per
night,22 for a total cost of $424 (4 rooms
× $106 per night). The Coast Guard
assumes that the four representatives
would share a rental car estimated to
cost $61 for transit to and from the
airport and the meeting.23 The Coast
Guard also assumes that each individual
would need 2 days of meals and
incidental allowance (first and last day
of travel), which is about $38 per day
per person for a total of $304 ($38 per
day × 2 days × 4).24 Accordingly, the
Coast Guard estimates the total cost of
flight travel to be about $2,189, which
includes the cost of plane tickets
($1,400), cost of overnight
accommodations ($424), cost of a rental
car ($61), and per diem expenses ($304).
The Coast Guard estimates that the
proposed rule would result in an annual
cost savings of about $9,021 per meeting
($2,189 in transportation cost and
$6,832 in labor cost) as industry
representatives would no longer need to
fly to meet with the COTP. Given that
18.75 percent of the new LNG fuel
facilities (one facility a year) would
choose to fly to meet with the COTP, the
Coast Guard estimates the annualized
cost savings to industry of not flying
would be about $1,691 ($9,021 × 1
facility × 0.75 × 0.25) using a 7-percent
discount rate.25 Moreover, the Coast
Guard estimates the discounted or the
present value cost savings to industry of
no longer flying to meet with the COTP
to be $11,880 over a 10-year period of
analysis using a 7-percent discount rate.
See table 5 for detail.
TABLE 5—DISCOUNTED INDUSTRY COST SAVINGS FOR NO LONGER MEETING WITH COTP (Flight)
[$2018]
Year
Travel cost
Labor cost
Total change
in cost
Total number
of facilities *
Cost savings
Cost savings
discounted at 3%
Cost savings
discounted at 7%
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) = (b) + (c)
(e)
(f) = (d) × (e)
(g) = (f) ÷ (1.03) (a)
(h) = (f) × (1.07) (a)
1 ...............................
2 ...............................
3 ...............................
4 ...............................
5 ...............................
6 ...............................
7 ...............................
8 ...............................
9 ...............................
10 .............................
$2,189
2,189
2,189
2,189
2,189
2,189
2,189
2,189
2,189
2,189
$1,642
1,594
1,548
1,503
1,459
1,417
1,375
1,335
1,296
1,259
$1,581
1,477
1,381
1,290
1,206
1,127
1,053
984
920
860
$0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
$1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
$1,642
1,594
1,548
1,503
1,459
1,417
1,375
1,335
1,296
1,259
$1,581
1,477
1,381
1,290
1,206
1,127
1,053
984
920
860
Total ..................
....................
....................
........................
........................
16,914
14,428
11,880
....................
....................
........................
........................
........................
1,691
1,691
Annualized
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* The fraction of facilities submitting alternative (0.75) multiplied by the fraction flying to the COTP (0.25).
Based on reviews of data in MISLE
and discussions with Coast Guard
SMEs, the Coast Guard determined that
of the four LNG fuel facilities (three
existing and one under construction),
three submitted an alternative request
and completed an ORA and one
completed a WSA. Accordingly, the
Coast Guard estimates that under the
existing regulatory requirements 25
percent of LNG fuel facilities would
complete a full WSA instead of
submitting an alternative request.
Discussions with industry
representatives suggest that consulting
firms hired by the facility to conduct
WSAs and ORAs would take
approximately 289 hours to complete an
ORA and 500 hours to complete a WSA.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates
the average cost to complete a WSA to
be $117,000 (500 consultant hours ×
$234 per hour) and the average cost to
complete an ORA to be $67,626 (289
consultant hours × $234 per hour), for
a cost savings of $49,374. Table 6
presents the annualized cost savings to
industry for completing an ORA in lieu
of a WSA. Given that only 25 percent of
new facilities complete a WSA, the
Coast Guard estimates the total
annualized cost savings to industry of
completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA to
be approximately $12,344 ($49,374 in
cost savings × 1 facility × 0.25 of
facilities that submit WSAs) using a 7percent discount rate. The Coast Guard
estimates the total discounted or present
value cost savings of industry
completing an ORA in place of a WSA
to be about $86,696 over a 10-year
period of analysis using a 7-percent
discount rate.
22 The Coast Guard multiplied the 2018 standard
GSA rate for lodging, $93 (which can be found here:
https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diemrates/per-diem-rates-lookup/?action=perdiems_
report&state=FL&fiscal_year=2016&zip=&city=), by
the mean lodging tax rate of 13.69 percent (which
can be found on page 7 of the HVS 2018 Lodging
Tax Report: https://www.hotelnewsresource.com/
pdf18/HVS092018.pdf) for a total cost of $106 per
night ($93 per night × 13.69 percent tax = $106 per
night) in 2018 dollars.
23 The Coast Guard used the $50 cost estimate of
a round trip airport transfer from the Validation of
Merchant Mariners’ Vital Information and Issuance
of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner’s Licenses and
Certificates of Registry Interim Rule (https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-200417455-0001) as a proxy for the cost of a round trip
airport transfer, and traveling to and from the
meeting. We adjusted the $50 amount to 2018
dollars using an inflation factor of 1.2556, which is
obtained by dividing 2018 GDP deflator (110.382)
by 2006 GDP deflator (90.006), i.e., 110.382/90.006
= 1.2256. So, we estimate the airport transfer cost
to be about $61 ($50 × 1.2256 = $61) in 2018 dollars.
24 The 2018 GSA rate for meals and incidental
expenses for first and last day of travel is $38.25
(See https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/perdiem-rates/per-diem-rates-lookup/
?action=perdiems_report&state=FL&fiscal_
year=2018&zip=&city=jacksonville).
25 We obtained 18.75% by multiplying the
proportion of facilities submitting alternative (75%)
by the proportion flying to the COTP (25%). i.e.,
0.25 × 0.75 = 0.1875.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62664
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS TO INDUSTRY OF COMPLETING ORAS AS OPPOSED TO WSAS
[$2018]
Year
Total change
in cost
Total number
of new LNG
fuel facilities
Total cost
savings
Cost savings
discounted at 3%
Cost savings
discounted at 7%
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) = (b) × (c)
(j) = (i) ÷ (1.03) (a)
(k) = (i) ÷ (1.07) (a)
1 ...........................................................................
2 ...........................................................................
3 ...........................................................................
4 ...........................................................................
5 ...........................................................................
6 ...........................................................................
7 ...........................................................................
8 ...........................................................................
9 ...........................................................................
10 .........................................................................
$49,374
49,374
49,374
49,374
49,374
49,374
49,374
49,374
49,374
49,374
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
$12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
$11,984
11,635
11,296
10,967
10,648
10,337
10,036
9,744
9,460
9,185
$11,536
10,781
10,076
9,417
8,801
8,225
7,687
7,184
6,714
6,275
Total ..............................................................
........................
........................
123,435
105,293
86,696
Annualized .............................................
........................
........................
........................
12,344
12,344
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Total Cost Savings to Industry
with the COTP to conduct an ORA in
lieu of a WSA. The Coast Guard
estimates the total present value or
discounted cost savings to industry of
the proposed rule over a 10-year period
of analysis to be about $113,482 in 2018
Table 7 contains the total cost savings
to industry of removing the
requirements that LNG fuel facilities
submit an alternative request and meet
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
The Coast Guard estimates the
annualized cost savings to industry to
be about $16,157 in 2018 dollars, using
a 7-percent discount rate.
TABLE 7—TOTAL INDUSTRY COST SAVINGS
[$2018]
Cost savings item
Year
Alternative
submission
Industry cost
for driving to
meeting with
COTP
Industry cost
for flying to
meeting with
COTP
ORA
instead of
WSA
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Total cost
savings
(undiscounted)
Cost savings
discounted at 3%
Cost savings
discounted at 7%
(f) = (b) + (c)
+ (d) + (e)
(g) = (f) ÷ (1.03) (a)
(h) = (f) ÷ (1.07) (a)
1 ...............................
2 ...............................
3 ...............................
4 ...............................
5 ...............................
6 ...............................
7 ...............................
8 ...............................
9 ...............................
10 .............................
$823
823
823
823
823
823
823
823
823
823
$1,299
1,299
1,299
1,299
1,299
1,299
1,299
1,299
1,299
1,299
$1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
1,691
$12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
12,344
$16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
$15,687
15,230
14,786
14,356
13,937
13,532
13,137
12,755
12,383
12,023
$15,100
14,112
13,189
12,326
11,520
10,766
10,062
9,404
8,789
8,214
Total ..................
....................
........................
........................
....................
161,573
137,825
113,482
....................
........................
........................
....................
........................
$16,157
$16,157
Annualized
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Changes With No Cost Impacts
The Coast Guard is proposing to
incorporate by reference updated and
new industry standards that are
available and known to the industry.
Based on discussions with an industry
consultant and SMEs in the CG–OES,
the Coast Guard determined that new,
expanded, and modified LNG import/
export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
LHG facilities are built to the most
current industry standards available at
the time of construction, expansion, or
modification and not the outdated
standards currently codified in 33 CFR
part 127. In addition, the new industry
standards do not apply to facilities
constructed, expanded, or modified
under a contract awarded after the
implementation date of the final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Hence, the Coast Guard does not
anticipate owners and operators of new,
expanded and modified facilities to
incur any cost to meet the updated or
new industry standards. If you have
comments concerning this assumption,
please submit comments identified by
docket number USCG–2019–0444 using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
In addition, as part of the LOI, the
Coast Guard proposes to add new
paragraph § 127.007(g) requiring an LNG
import/export facility that complete a
WSA to provide information to the
Coast Guard on the nation of registry
for, and the nationality or citizenship of
officers and crew serving on board,
vessels transporting liquefied natural
gas that are reasonably anticipated to be
servicing that facility. This requirement
would only be applicable when a
facility has to submit the LOI and WSA
to the Coast Guard and is not required
every time a vessel comes to port.
Because both the LOI and WSA are
submitted years before the facility
becomes operational, Coast Guard SMEs
have determined that it is highly
unlikely any specific details regarding
vessels and their crew would be known
at the time the LOI and WSA are
62665
submitted. Table 8 summarizes the
proposed changes with no cost impacts.
If you have comments or have questions
concerning the no cost determination
presented in Table 8, please submit
comments identified by docket number
USCG–2019–0444 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 33 CFR 127 WITH NO ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Topic
CFR section
Facility type(s)
Changes to baseline requirements
Cost impact
General Requirements
Authority .................
........................
All ...........................
Applicability ............
§ 127.001
All ...........................
Inactive LNG fuel
and import/export
facilities.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
All ...........................
Incorporation by reference.
§ 127.003
All ...........................
Definitions ..............
§ 127.005
All ...........................
LOI and WSA .........
§ 127.007
New LNG import/
export facilities
and LHG Facilities.
New LNG Fuel Facilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
• Revised the authority citation to read
as 46 U.S.C. 70011 and 70034; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
• Amended paragraph (a) and (c) by
removing the word ‘‘existing’’ because
the term as it is currently defined in
§ 127.005 does not cover waterfront
facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed after 1988 and 1996, respectively.
• Amended paragraph (c) by removing
a reference to § 127.701, which contains security requirements for inactive LNG facilities.
• Waterfront facilities handling LNG
and LHG constructed, expanded or
modified under a contract awarded
after [INSERT 30 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register] are required to comply with the
standards referenced in § 127.003. All
other facilities, unless expanded or
modified in accordance with this part,
are required to meet the standards
that were in effect at the time the facilities were constructed, but may request to apply a later edition of the
standards
in
accordance
with
§ 127.017.
• Updated standards that are currently
listed to reflect the latest edition of
the standards available and adding
three new standards for incorporation
by reference (see section ‘‘Discussion
of Proposed Rule’’ of this preamble
for a list of these standards).
• Added new definitions for ‘‘LNG fuel
facility’’ and modified the existing definitions for ‘‘Facility’’ and ‘‘Fire endurance rating.’’.
• Amended paragraph (a), (b), and (e)
by removing the word ‘‘existing’’ because the term as it is currently defined in § 127.005 does not cover waterfront facilities handling LNG and
LHG constructed after 1988 and
1996, respectively.
• Excluded LNG fuel facilities from this
section because they will be addressed in a new § 127.008.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that the security requirements
are now covered under 33 CFR part
105 and thus reference to § 127.701
in paragraph (c) is duplicative. Accordingly, removing the requirement
does not have cost implications
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG import/export
facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG
facilities would meet the most recent
industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
05OCP1
62666
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 33 CFR 127 WITH NO ECONOMIC IMPACTS—Continued
Topic
CFR section
Facility type(s)
New LNG import/
export facilities.
Changes to baseline requirements
Cost impact
• Added a new paragraph (g) requiring
a LNG import/export facility to provide
information to the Coast Guard on the
nation of registry of the vessels for,
and the nationality or citizenship of
officers and crew serving on board,
vessels transporting natural gas that
are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility.
• Added a new paragraph (j) to clarify
that an owner or operator intending to
construct a new LNG fuel facility or
modify any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility
may comply with § 127.008 in lieu of
meeting the requirements in this section.
• Identified industry standards related
to conducting risk assessments on
LNG fuel facilities.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that facilities with specific details regarding vessels and their crew
would not be known at the time of
LOI and ORA submission.
LOI and ORA .........
§ 127.008
New LNG Fuel Facilities.
Letter of Recommendation.
§ 127.009
All New Facilities ...
• Updated text to refer to § 127.008 .....
Inspection of Waterfront Facilities.
Appeals ..................
§ 127.011
All New Facilities ...
§ 127.015
All New Facilities ...
Alternatives ............
§ 127.017
All New Facilities ...
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Updated the address of Coast Guard
Headquarters.
• Updated the name of the Coast
Guard office reviewing appeals.
• Added reference to § 127.003 ............
Operations Manual
and Emergency
Manual Procedures for Examination.
§ 127.019
All New Facilities ...
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Amended paragraph (b) by removing
the word ‘‘existing’’ to clarify that all
waterfront facilities handling LNG and
LHG regardless of when they were
constructed must submit the information required in § 127.019.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG fuel facilities
and LHG facilities would meet the
most recent industry standards in the
absence of regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature, and it only clarifies that
the letter for recommendation may be
sent after the receipt of a WSA or
ORA.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in its nature.
LNG—Design and Construction
Design and Construction General.
§ 127.101
New LNG Facilities
Electrical Power
System.
§ 127.107
New LNG Facilities
• Updated references to NFPA 59A
chapters and sections to reflect the
numbering in the most recent edition.
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
• Removed a reference to the National
Electrical Code.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that that all new LNG and LHG
facilities would meet the most recent
industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
LNG—Equipment
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Sensing and Alarm
Systems.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
§ 127.201
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
New LNG Facilities
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
• Updated references to NFPA 59A
sections to reflect the numbering in
the most recent edition.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that that all new LNG and LHG
facilities would meet the most recent
industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
62667
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 33 CFR 127 WITH NO ECONOMIC IMPACTS—Continued
Topic
CFR section
Facility type(s)
Changes to baseline requirements
Cost impact
LNG—Operations
Persons in Charge
of Shoreside
Transfer Operations: Qualifications and Certification.
Operations Manual
and Emergency
Manual Use.
Motor Vehicles .......
§ 127.301
New LNG Facilities
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
§ 127.309
New LNG Facilities
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
§ 127.311
New LNG Facilities
Bulk Storage ..........
§ 127.313
New LNG Facilities
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.
Primary Transfer Inspection.
Declaration of Inspection.
LNG Transfer .........
§ 127.315
New LNG Facilities
§ 127.317
New LNG Facilities
§ 127.319
New LNG Facilities
Release of LNG .....
§ 127.321
New LNG Facilities
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that that all new LNG and LHG
facilities would meet the most recent
industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
LNG—Maintenance
Maintenance: General.
Inspections .............
§ 127.401
New LNG Facilities
§ 127.403
New LNG Facilities
Repairs ...................
§ 127.405
New LNG Facilities
Testing ...................
§ 127.407
New LNG Facilities
Records ..................
§ 127.409
New LNG Facilities
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Updated references to NFPA 59A
sections to reflect the numbering in
the most recent edition.
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’ with
‘‘must.’’.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
LNG—Fire Equipment
Portable Fire Extinguishers.
§ 127.603
New LNG Facilities
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
• Updated references to NFPA 59A
sections to reflect the numbering in
the most recent edition.
International Shore
Connection.
§ 127.611
New LNG Facilities
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
• Updated the referenced version of
ASTM F 1121–87.
Smoking .................
§ 127.613
New LNG Facilities
Fires .......................
§ 127.615
New LNG Facilities
Hotwork ..................
§ 127.617
New LNG Facilities
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that that all new LNG and LHG
facilities would meet the most recent
industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
05OCP1
62668
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 33 CFR 127 WITH NO ECONOMIC IMPACTS—Continued
Topic
CFR section
Facility type(s)
Changes to baseline requirements
Cost impact
LNG––Security
Security on Existing
Facilities.
§ 127.701
New LNG Facilities
Access to the Marine Transfer
Area for LNG.
§ 127.703
New LNG Facilities
Security Systems ...
§ 127.705
New LNG Facilities
Security Personnel
§ 127.707
New LNG Facilities
Protective Enclosures.
§ 127.709
New LNG Facilities
Communications ....
§ 127.711
New LNG Facilities
• Removed the section as the requirements in this section are no longer
needed because facilities regulated
under part 127 are required to comply
with the maritime security facilities
regulations contained in 33 CFR part
105.
• Removed the section as the requirements in this section are no longer
needed because facilities regulated
under part 127 are required to comply
with the maritime security facilities
regulations contained in 33 CFR part
105.
• Removed the section as the requirements in this section are no longer
needed because facilities regulated
under Part 127 are required to comply with the maritime security facilities
regulations contained in 33 CFR part
105..
• Removed the section as the requirements in this section are no longer
needed because facilities regulated
under Part 127 are required to comply with the maritime security facilities
regulations contained in 33 CFR part
105.
• Removed the section as the requirements in this section are no longer
needed because facilities regulated
under part 127 are required to comply
with the maritime security facilities
regulations contained in 33 CFR part
105.
• Removed the section as the requirements in this section are no longer
needed because facilities regulated
under part 127 are required to comply
with the maritime security facilities
regulations contained in 33 CFR part
105.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
LHG—Design and Construction
Piping Systems ......
§ 127.1101
New LHG Facilities
• Updated the referenced version of
ASME B31.3.
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
Transfer Hoses and
Loading Arms.
§ 127.1102
New LHG Facilities
• Updated the referenced version of
ASME B16.5.
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
Piers and wharves
§ 127.1103
New LHG ...............
Layout and spacing
of marine transfer
area for LHG.
§ 127.1105
New LHG ...............
• Removed the word ‘‘existing’’ from
this section to clarify the requirements
in this section apply to new constructions in the marine transfer area on
all LHG facilities, and not just to ‘‘existing’’ facilities.
• Removed the word ‘‘existing from this
section to clarify the requirements in
this section apply to new constructions in the marine transfer area on
all LHG facilities, and not just to ‘‘existing’’ facilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
62669
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 33 CFR 127 WITH NO ECONOMIC IMPACTS—Continued
Topic
CFR section
Electrical Systems ..
§ 127.1107
Facility type(s)
Changes to baseline requirements
Cost impact
New LHG Facilities
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
LHG—Equipment
Gas Detection ........
§ 127.1203
New LHG Facilities
• Updated the referenced version of UL
60079–29–1..
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
Warning Alarms .....
§ 127.1207
New LHG Facilities
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. These changes are administrative in nature.
LHG—Operations
§ 127.1301
New LHG Facilities
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
§ 127.1302
New LHG Facilities
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
Operations Manual
and Emergency
Manual Use.
Motor Vehicles .......
§ 127.1309
New LHG Facilities
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
• No
tive
• No
tive
cost. This change is administrain nature.
cost. This change is administrain nature.
§ 127.1311
New LHG Facilities
Storage of Hazardous Materials.
§ 127.1313
New LHG Facilities
• No
tive
• No
tive
cost. This change is administrain nature.
cost. This change is administrain nature.
• No
tive
• No
tive
• No
tive
• No
tive
• No
tive
cost. This
in nature.
cost. This
in nature.
cost. This
in nature.
cost. This
in nature.
cost. This
in nature.
Persons in Charge
of Transfers for
the Facility: Qualifications and Certification..
Training ..................
Preliminary Transfer
Inspection.
Declaration of Inspection.
Transfer of LHG .....
§ 127.1315
New LHG Facilities
§ 127.1317
New LHG Facilities
§ 127.1319
New LHG Facilities
Release of LHG .....
§ 127.1321
New LHG Facilities
Access to Marine
Transfer Area for
LHG.
§ 127.1325
New LHG Facilities
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Added references to § 127.003,
corporation by reference.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
with
with
‘‘Inwith
with
with
with
with
change is administrachange is administrachange is administrachange is administrachange is administra-
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
LHG—Maintenance
General ..................
§ 127.1401
New LHG Facilities
Inspections .............
§ 127.1403
New LHG Facilities
Repairs ...................
§ 127.1405
New LHG Facilities
Tests ......................
§ 127.1407
New LHG Facilities
Records ..................
§ 127.1409
New LHG Facilities
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced the word ‘‘shall’’
‘‘must.’’.
• Added references to § 127.003,
corporation by reference.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaced
‘‘must.’’.
with
with
with
‘‘In-
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
LHG—Fire Equipment
General ..................
§ 127.1501
New LHG facilities
Portable Fire Extinguishers.
§ 127.1503
New LHG Facilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
• Amended this section by removing
the word ‘‘existing’’ to clarify that
§ 127.1501 applies to new LHG facilities, not just ‘‘existing’’ LHG facilities..
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
05OCP1
62670
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 33 CFR 127 WITH NO ECONOMIC IMPACTS—Continued
Topic
CFR section
International Shore
Connection.
§ 127.1511
Facility type(s)
Changes to baseline requirements
Cost impact
New LHG Facilities
• Added references to § 127.003, ‘‘Incorporation by reference.’’.
• Updated the referenced version of
ASTM F 1121–87.
• No cost. This change is administrative in nature.
• No cost. The Coast Guard has determined that all new LNG and LHG facilities would meet the most recent industry standards in the absence of
regulation.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
LHG—Fire Protection
Smoking .................
§ 127.1601
New LHG Facilities
Hotwork ..................
§ 127.1603
New LHG Facilities
Other Sources of
Ignition.
§ 127.1605
New LHG Facilities
• Replaces
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaces
‘‘must.’’.
• Replaces
‘‘must.’’.
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
the
word
‘‘shall’’
with
• No
tive
• No
tive
• No
tive
cost. This change is administrain nature.
cost. This change is administrain nature.
cost. This change is administrain nature.
Cost Savings to Government
Under the current regulation in
§ 127.017, the Coast Guard must review
alternative requests submitted by
facilities seeking to conduct a modified
WSA. According to the most recent ICR
for 33 CFR part 127 with an OMB
Control Number of 1625–0049,
reviewing an alternative request
requires 4 hours of enlisted staff time (2
hours of E–5 time and 2 hours of E–6
time) and 1 hour of two officers’ time
combined (0.5 hours of O–2 time and
0.5 hours of O–3 time). To estimate the
labor cost of reviewing alternative
requests, we used loaded hourly wage
rates of officers and enlisted staff
members in Commandant Instruction
7310.1T, Coast Guard Reimbursable
Standard Rates. For the 2018 fiscal year,
the loaded hourly wage rates for O–2,
O–3, O–4, E–5, and E–6 employees were
$69, $82, $97, $54, and $61,
respectively.26 Accordingly, the Coast
Guard estimates the total labor cost of
reviewing an alternative request to be
about $306, which includes $76 in
officers labor cost [(0.5 hours of O–2
time × $69) + (0.5 hours of O–3 time ×
$82)] and $230 in enlisted staff labor
cost [(2 hours of E–5 time × $54) + (2
hours of E–6 time × $61)].
Given that 75 percent of LNG fuel
facilities have currently submitted an
alternative request and given that there
is only one submission, the Coast Guard
estimates annualized cost savings to the
Federal Government of no longer
reviewing these requests to be about
$229 ($306 in cost saving × 1 facility ×
0.75) using a 7-percent discount rate.
In addition to reviewing the
alternative request, Coast Guard staff
must also meet with representatives of
the firm submitting the alternative
request. Discussions with Coast Guard
SMEs in the CG–OES revealed that the
meeting lasts 2 hours and involves an
O–3 and O–4 level staff of the Coast
Guard. Accordingly, the Coast Guard
estimates the total labor cost of
reviewing an alternative request to be
$358 ((2 hours of O–3 time × $82) + (2
hours of O–4 time × $97)). Therefore,
given the assumption that 75 percent of
LNG fuel facilities would submit
alternative requests and given that there
will be one submission, the average
annual cost savings to the Federal
Government of no longer meeting
facility representatives would be $269
($358 in cost saving × 1 facility × 0.75),
undiscounted.
Finally, the Coast Guard expects the
Federal Government to save money from
reviewing an ORA when compared to a
WSA. The OMB-approved ICR with a
Control Number of 1625–0049 reports
that reviewing a WSA and the
corresponding Hazard Identification
(HAZID) 27 study requires 20 hours of
enlisted staff time (10 hours of E–5 time
and 10 hours of E–6 time) and 40 hours
of officer time (20 hours of O–2 time
and 20 hours of O–3 time), costing
approximately $4,170 ((10 hours of E–5
time × $54) + (10 hours of E–6 time ×
$61) + (20 hours of O–2 time × $69) +
(20 hours of O–3 time × $82)). Based on
discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in
Sector Jacksonville, reviewing an ORA
and the corresponding HAZID study
requires 38 hours of officer time (19
hours of O–3 time and 19 hours of O–
4 time), costing about $3,401 ((19 hours
of O–3 time × $82) + (19 hours of O–
4 time × $97)). Accordingly, the Coast
Guard estimates that the cost savings
from reviewing an ORA instead of a
WSA is about $769 ($4,170—$3,401),
undiscounted. Therefore, given only 25
percent of the LNG facilities currently
conduct a WSA instead of submitting an
alternative request, the Coast Guard
estimates the annualized cost savings to
the government of reviewing an ORA
instead of a WSA to be about $192 ($769
in cost savings × 1 facility × 0.25) using
a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 9 presents the total cost savings
to the Federal Government of the
proposed change that would eliminate
the requirement to submit an alternative
request and meet with the COTP to
conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. The
Coast Guard estimates the total
discounted or present value cost to the
Federal Government over a 10-year
period of analysis to be about $4,845
using a 7-percent discount rate. The
Coast Guard estimates the annualized
cost savings to the Federal Government
to be about $690 using a 7-percent
discount rate.
26 Readers can find the wage rates of officers and
enlisted staff members on page 2 of Enclosure 2 of
the Commandant Instruction 7310.1T. This
document is available in the docket where
indicated under the Public Participation and
Request for Comments section of this preamble.
27 A HAZID study is carried out to identify the
main risks that can occur during LNG transfers from
an LNG fuel facility to a receiving vessel.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62671
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—TOTAL GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS
[$2018]
Cost savings item
Year
Alternative
submission
review
Meeting with
industry
representatives
Reviewing
WSAs
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Total cost
savings
Cost savings
discounted at 3%
Cost savings
discounted at 7%
(e) = (b) + (c) + (d)
(f) = (e) ÷ (1.03) (a)
(g) = (e) ÷ (1.07) (a)
1 ...................................
2 ...................................
3 ...................................
4 ...................................
5 ...................................
6 ...................................
7 ...................................
8 ...................................
9 ...................................
10 .................................
$229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
$269
269
269
269
269
269
269
269
269
269
$192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
$690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
$670
650
631
613
595
578
561
545
529
513
$645
603
563
526
492
460
430
402
375
351
Total ......................
........................
............................
........................
6,899
5,885
4,845
Annualized .....
........................
............................
........................
................................
690
690
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Total Cost Savings
Table 10 summarizes the total costs of
this proposed rule to industry and the
Federal Government for the 10-year
period of analysis. The Coast Guard
estimates the total discounted or present
perpetual period of analysis, the Coast
Guard estimates the total annualized
cost savings of this notice of proposed
rulemaking to be $11,527 in 2016
dollars and discounted back to 2016
using a 7-percent discount rate.
value cost to industry and the Federal
Government over a 10-year period of
analysis to be about $118,328 in 2018
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
We estimate the annualized cost savings
to be about $16,847 in 2018 dollars,
using a 7-percent discount rate. Using a
TABLE 10—TOTAL COST SAVINGS TO INDUSTRY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
[$2018]
Industry cost
savings
Year
Government
cost savings
Total cost
savings
Discounted cost savings
3%
7%
1 ...........................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................
6 ...........................................................................................
7 ...........................................................................................
8 ...........................................................................................
9 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
$16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
16,157
$690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
$16,847
16,847
16,847
16,847
16,847
16,847
16,847
16,847
16,847
16,847
$16,357
15,880
15,418
14,969
14,533
14,109
13,698
13,299
12,912
12,536
$15,745
14,715
13,752
12,853
12,012
11,226
10,492
9,805
9,164
8,564
Total ..............................................................................
161,573
6,899
168,472
143,710
118,328
Annualized .............................................................
........................
........................
........................
16,847
16,847
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Alternatives
While developing this proposed rule,
the Coast Guard considered three
alternatives to the proposed rule. We
present a summary of the alternatives
below and show their corresponding
impact and cost savings in table 11.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
In this alternative, the Coast Guard
would accept the status quo and review
each proposal for an LNG fuel facility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
on a case-by-case, equivalency basis. We
rejected this alternative because the
Coast Guard believes this approach is
inefficient in an environment of growing
interest in LNG fuel because it does not
respond to the needs of the U.S.
maritime industry. This alternative
would not impose any additional costs
on industry, nor would LNG fuel
facilities receive any cost savings from
submitting an ORA as opposed to a
WSA.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA, but Do
Not Update the IBR Standards
Alternative
Under this alternative, the Coast
Guard would reduce industry burden by
allowing new LNG fuel facilities to
submit an ORA instead of a WSA. This
alternative would not impose any
additional costs to industry. We rejected
this alternative because the Coast Guard
would not be updating the existing
incorporated by reference (IBR)
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62672
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
facilities to submit an ORA instead of a
WSA as long as the facility
representatives meet with the COTP and
get the ORA approved. Although this
alternative is less burdensome
compared to the baseline, the Coast
Guard rejected this alternative because
it would require industry
representatives to continue meeting
standards and regulations would
continue to reference outdated
standards instead of reflecting industry
best practices and the best technologies
available to industry.
Alternative 3: Continue To Meet With
the COTP When Submitting the ORA
Under this alternative, the Coast
Guard would allow new LNG fuel
with the COTP in person to discuss the
ORA. A requirement to meet the COTP
would needlessly impose greater burden
than the proposed rule without
providing an improvement in safety
sufficient to justify the difference in
burden.
TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
Annualized total
cost savings
Alternative
Proposed Rule .............................
$16,847
Alternative 1: No Action ...............
0
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA,
but do not update the IBR
Standards Alternative.
16,847
Alternative 3: Continue to Meet
with the COTP when submitting
an ORA.
13,166
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601–612, the Coast Guard
considered whether this proposed rule
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’
comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. Below
is a threshold analysis of the small
entity impacts.
The proposed rule would apply to
new LNG fuel facilities, LNG import and
export facilities, and new LHG facilities.
LNG Fuel Facilities
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Impact of the alternative
The Coast Guard has determined the
proposed rule would have no cost or a
cost savings impact on existing LNG
fuel facilities and would generate cost
savings to one new facility per year. In
particular, the Coast Guard estimates
that the proposed rule would generate a
cost savings of about $16,153, using 7percent discount rate, to one new LNG
fuel facility per year. To estimate the
potential impact on small entities, the
$16,153 in cost saving has to be
compared with the annual revenue data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Codifies industry standards establishing national baseline safety standards and alleviating discrepancies and unnecessary duplication between regulatory standards and
industry best practices. In addition, the NPRM reduces the burden to industry by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having to
submit an alternative request and meet with the COTP to obtain approval.
Does not codify minimum safety standards, respond to industry needs, or reduce industry burden. It does not impose any additional costs.
The alternative would reduce the burden to industry by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to
submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having to submit an alternative request
and meet with the COTP to obtain approval. However, this alternative would not codify
minimum safety standards. This alternative would not impose any additional costs to
industry.
The alternative codifies industry standards establishing national baseline safety standards. In addition, the alternative reduces the burden to industry by allowing new LNG
fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having to submit an alternative request and meet with the COTP to obtain approval. However, this alternative
still requires meeting with the COTP, making it more burdensome compared to the
NPRM. This alternative would not impose any new cost to industry, but has less cost
savings compared to Alternative 2.
of the new LNG fuel facility impacted
by the proposed rule. The Coast Guard
determined that an entity would have to
have an annual revenue of $1,615,300 or
less for the proposed rule to have an
impact greater than 1 percent of
revenue.
Moreover, using the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) size standards
table,28 the Coast Guard has determined
that two of the four LNG fuel facilities
are small entities. These two small
entities have a North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code of
213112 and 541990. Based on SBA’s
size standards table, the size standard
for these codes are $38.5 million and
$15 million, respectively. Publicly
available data suggests that the annual
revenue of the two facilities are about
$2.4 million and about $3.8 million.
Thus, conservatively assuming the new
LNG fuel facility would have annual
revenues equivalent to the smallest
entity in the industry, the Coast Guard
estimates that the economic impact, in
the form of cost savings, of the proposed
rule would be approximately 0.673
28 Readers can view industry size standards at the
following link https://www.sba.gov/document/
support—table-size-standards (accessed 07/11/
2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
percent of revenue (($16,153/
$2,400,000) × 100 = 0.673).
No not-for-profit organizations are
involved with LNG fuel facilities. In
addition, this proposed rule would not
have an adverse or beneficial impact on
small government entities.
LNG Import and Export Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined that
the proposed rule would have no cost or
a cost savings impact on existing and
new LNG import/export facilities.
Moreover, no not-for-profit
organizations are involved with LNG
import/export facilities. This proposed
rule would not have an adverse or
beneficial impact on small government
entities.
LHG Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined that
the proposed rule would have no cost or
a cost savings impact on existing and
new LHG facilities. Moreover, no notfor-profit organizations are involved
with LHG facilities. This proposed rule
would not have an adverse or beneficial
impact on small government entities.
As noted above, the Coast Guard has
determined that the economic impact on
the affected small entities is not
significant. Thus, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment to the docket
at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. In your
comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this proposed rule would economically
affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a
revised collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. As defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of
information’’ comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, and other similar actions. The
title and description of the information
collection, a description of those who
must collect the information, and an
estimate of the total annual burden
follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing sources of data, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
completing and reviewing the
collection.
Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling
Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied
Hazardous Gas.
OMB Control Number: 1625–0049.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: The Coast Guard currently
collects information from waterfront
facilities handling LNG and LHG under
33 CFR part 127. The current
information collection request (ICR
201609–1625–002, OMB Control
Number 1625–0049) contains
requirements in the following sections:
LOIs, WSAs, the submission of appeals
to the Coast Guard, the submission of
alternatives to the Coast Guard,
Operations Manuals, Emergency
Manuals, Certification of the Person in
Charge, Declaration of Inspection, and
Records of Maintenance. In addition,
the proposed rule would add a new
collection of information for ORA
submissions for new LNG fuel facilities.
Need for Information: The Coast
Guard has regulations that provide
safety standards for the design and
construction, equipment, operations,
maintenance, personnel training, and
fire protection at waterfront facilities
handling LNG. These regulations help
reduce the probability that an accident
could occur and help reduce the damage
and injury to persons and property
should an accident occur.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard
currently uses the information collected
under OMB Control Number 1625–0049
for the following purposes: (1)
Determine the suitability of a waterfront
facility handling LNG to safely conduct
LNG fuel transfer operations; (2)
properly evaluate alternative procedures
to ensure they provide at least the same
degree of safety as the regulations; (3)
ensure that safe operating procedures
and an effective training program are set
up by the waterfront facility operator;
(4) ensure that effective procedures have
been set up by the waterfront facility
operator to respond to emergencies;
ensure the person in charge of an LNG
or LHG transfer is properly qualified;
and (5) verify that persons in charge are
following proper transfer procedures.
Description of the Respondents: The
respondents are LNG import/export
facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG
facilities.
Number of Respondents: The
currently approved number of
respondents for this collection of
information is 156 respondents,
comprised of 143 LHG facilities and 13
waterfront facilities handling LNG (2
LNG fuel facilities and 11 LNG import/
export facilities). Based on the most
recent population data from MISLE, the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62673
current number of respondents is 121,
comprised of 106 LHG facilities and 15
waterfront facilities handling LNG (3
LNG fuel facilities and 12 LNG import/
export facilities). The Coast Guard
anticipates the number of waterfront
facilities handling LNG would increase
by three annually (two new LNG
import/export facilities and one LNG
fuel facility). The Coast Guard also
anticipates three new LHG facilities
would replace three retiring facilities
annually, maintaining the number of
LHG facilities at 106 throughout the 10year period of analysis. Accordingly, the
number of respondents is anticipated to
be 124 (106 LHG facilities + 14 LNG
import/export facilities + 4 LNG fuel
facilities) respondents in year 1; 127
(106 LHG facilities + 16 LNG import/
export facilities + 5 LNG fuel facilities)
respondents in year 2; and 130 (106
LHG facilities + 18 LNG import/export
facilities + 6 LNG fuel facilities
respondents in year 3.
Frequency of Response: The number
of responses per year pursuant to this
proposed rule would vary by
requirement. The proposed rule does
not change the frequency of responses
for existing requirements. However, the
proposed rule introduces a new ORA
requirement, which is a one-time
requirement for the lifetime of the LNG
fuel facility.
Burden of Response: The burden per
response for each regulatory
requirement varies. Because the Coast
Guard possesses better data now than it
did the last time collection 1625–0049
was renewed, the proposed rule would
adjust the currently approved burden to
complete a WSA from 704 hours to 500
hours and would create a new burden
of 289 hours to complete an ORA. The
proposed rule would also eliminate the
10 hours of burden required to prepare
an alternative request.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The
first year burden to respondents of this
proposed rule is 6,720 hours, which is
a 3,015 hour reduction in burden from
the current corresponding ICR approved
under OMB Control Number 1625–0049
total of 9,734 hours. This reduction in
burden is the result of both program
changes of 221 hours and adjustment
changes of 2,794 hours. The program
changes correspond to the proposed
removal of a WSA and an alternative
request, which requires 510 hours (500
hours for a WSA and 10 hours for an
alternative request) to complete, in lieu
of an ORA, which requires 289 hours.
The adjustment change or a reduction of
2,794 hours includes the following: (1)
A 4-hour increase in burden due to
rounding errors; (2) a 919-hour increase
in burden due to adjustment in the
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62674
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
number of existing LNG facilities from
13 to 15 and the number of new LNG
facilities that need to complete a WSA
under the existing regulation from 1 per
year to 3 per year (1 new LNG fuel
facility per year and 2 new LNG import/
export facilities per year); (3) a 3,105hour reduction in burden due to
adjustment in the number of existing
LHG facilities from 143 per year to 106
per year, and the corresponding
adjustment in new facilities from 5 per
year to 3 per year; and (4) a 612-hour
reduction in burden due to adjustments
to the number of hours required to
complete a WSA from 704 per year to
500 per year (the difference is a result
of going from 704 hours to complete a
WSA for 3 facilities a year, or 2,112
hours, to 500 hours to complete a WSA
for the same 3 facilities, or 1,500 hours,
for a net reduction of 612 hours
annually).
For a new LNG import/export facility,
the proposed rule would require that it
provide information to the Coast Guard
at the time the WSA is submitted on the
nation of registry for, and the nationality
or citizenship of officers and crew
serving on board, vessels transporting
natural gas that are reasonably
anticipated to be servicing that facility.
The Coast Guard does not expect
specific details regarding vessels and
their crew would be known at the time
the LOI and WSA are submitted to the
Coast Guard several years before the
facility begins operations. The
Paperwork Reduction Act would not
apply to this requirement as the Coast
Guard anticipates only two new LNG
import/export facilities per year would
be subject to this requirement.29
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we
will submit a copy of this proposed rule
to OMB for its review of the collection
of information.
We ask for public comment on the
proposed revised collection of
information to help us determine,
among other things—
• How useful the information is;
• Whether the information can help
us perform our functions better;
• How we can improve the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information;
• Whether the information is readily
available elsewhere;
• How accurate our estimate is of the
burden of collection;
29 The
Paperwork Reduction Act applies to
collections of information using identical questions
posed to, or reporting or recordkeeping
requirements imposed on, ten or more persons per
year. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c), and Office of
Management and Budget Memorandum for the
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and
Independent Regulatory Agencies, dated April 7,
2010, at p. 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
• How valid our methods are for
determining the burden of collection;
and
• How we can minimize the burden
of collection.
If you submit comments on the
collection of information, submit them
by the date listed in the DATES section
of this preamble to both the OMB and
to the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number from
OMB. Before the Coast Guard could
enforce the collection of information
requirements in this proposed rule,
OMB would need to approve the Coast
Guard’s request to collect this
information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 13132 and have
determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and
preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis
follows.
The proposed rule, with respect to the
LOI, WSA, and ORA submission
requirements and COTP approval
(§§ 127.007, 127.008, 127.009, 127.015,
and 127.017), does not conflict with
State interests. They are procedural
requirements for the Coast Guard’s own
safety and security risk analysis,
approval, and appeal process of a new,
modified, or reactivated facility and its
attendant LNG transfer operations. As it
relates to other requirements imposed
by individual States, or their political
subdivisions, the submission and
approval process for the construction of
a new structure would be unaffected by
this rule.
Moreover, with respect to LNG
transfer operations that may be included
in the LOI, WSA, and ORA submissions,
pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(1),
Congress has expressly authorized the
establishment of ‘‘procedures, measures
and standards for the handling, loading,
unloading, storage, stowage and
movement on a structure of explosives
or other dangerous articles and
substances, including oil or hazardous
material.’’ The Coast Guard
affirmatively preempts any State rules
related to these procedures, measures,
and standards (See United States v.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109–110 (2000)).
Therefore, because the States may not
regulate within these categories, this
rule is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132.
Regarding the updates of technical
standards referenced in 33 CFR part
127, it is Congress’s express intent that,
with respect to waterfront structures,
States retain the power to regulate to
higher standards than those
promulgated by the Coast Guard. As
stated in 46 U.S.C. 70011(c), ‘‘State
Law.—Nothing in this section, with
respect to structures, prohibits a State or
political subdivision thereof from
prescribing higher safety equipment or
safety standards than those that may be
prescribed by regulations under this
section.’’ Thus, Congress has made clear
that the federal standards promulgated
under this section establish the uniform
minimum standards of the United
States, but individual States are entitled
to impose higher safety equipment
requirements or higher safety standards
for structures within their jurisdiction.
The Coast Guard recognizes the key
role that State and local governments
may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules
with federalism implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order
13132 specifically directs agencies to
consult with State and local
governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this proposed
rule would have implications for
federalism under Executive Order
13132, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
F. Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Although this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this proposed rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice
Reform), to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule and would
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it would 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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use). We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
L. Technical Standards and
Incorporation by Reference
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies
to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless the
agency provides Congress, through
OMB, with an explanation of why using
these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods;
sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule incorporates by
reference the following new voluntary
consensus standards, which are listed
and summarized below:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
• ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines
for Systems and Installations for Supply
of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition,
15 January 2015. This standard gives
guidance on the minimum requirements
for the design and operation of the LNG
bunkering (fueling) facility, including
the interface between the LNG supply
facilities and receiving ships.
• ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum
and Natural Gas Industries—Installation
and Equipment for Liquefied Natural
Gas—Ship-to-Shore Interface and Port
Operations, First Edition, 15 December
2010. This standard specifies the
requirements for ship, terminal, and
port service providers to ensure the safe
transit of an LNG carrier through the
port area and the safe and efficient
transfer of its cargo.
This proposed rule also incorporates
the following new technical standard
other than a voluntary consensus
standard.
• DNV GL, Recommended Practice,
DNVGL–RP–G105, Development and
Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas
Bunkering Facilities, October 2015
Edition. This standard provides
guidance to the industry on the
developmental, organizational,
technical, functional, and operational
issues of LNG bunkering (fueling)
facilities in order to ensure global
compatibility and secure a high level of
safety, integrity, and reliability.
This technical standard was selected
because it aligns with ISO/TS
18683:2015(E). Both DNVGL–RP–G105
and ISO/TS 18683:2015(E) provide
guidance to industry on conducting risk
assessments that are focused on
providing LNG as a marine fuel
(bunkering operations).
This proposed rule incorporates by
reference the following updated
voluntary consensus standards, which
are listed and summarized below:
• API Recommended Practice 2003,
Protection Against Ignitions Arising Out
of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents,
Eighth Edition, September 2015. This
standard presents the current state of
knowledge and technology in the fields
of static electricity and stray currents
applicable to the prevention of
hydrocarbon ignition in the petroleum
industry, which is based on both
scientific research and practical
experience.
• ASME B16.5–2017, Pipe Flanges
and Flanged Fittings, NPS 1⁄2 through
NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard,
November 20, 2017. This standard
covers pressure-temperature ratings,
materials, dimensions, tolerances,
marking, testing, and methods of
designating openings for pipe flanges
and flanged fittings.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62675
• ASME B31.3–2018, Process Piping,
ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31,
August 30, 2019. This standard contains
requirements for piping typically found
in petroleum refineries; chemical,
pharmaceutical, textile, paper,
semiconductor, and cryogenic plants;
and related processing plants and
terminals. It covers materials and
components, design, fabrication,
assembly, erection, examination,
inspection, and testing of piping.
• ASTM F 1121–87 (Reapproved
2015), Standard Specification for
International Shore Connections for
Marine Fire Applications, approved
May 1, 2015. This standard covers the
specifications for the design and
manufacture of international shore
connections to be used with marine
firefighting systems during an
emergency when a stricken ship has a
system failure.
• IEC 60079–29–1, Edition 2.0,
Explosive Atmospheres—Part 29–1: Gas
Detectors—Performance Requirements
of Detectors for Flammable Gases, July
2016. This standard specifies general
requirements for construction, testing,
and performance, and describes the test
methods that apply to portable,
transportable, and fixed apparatus for
the detection and measurement of
flammable gas or vapor concentrations
with air.
• NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire
Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective
April 21, 2017. This standard applies to
the selection, installation, inspection,
maintenance, recharging, and testing of
portable extinguishing equipment and
Class D extinguishing agents.
• NFPA 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code, 2018
Edition, effective September 6, 2017.
This standard applies to the storage,
handling, and use of flammable and
combustible liquids, including waste
liquids.
• NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire
Prevention During Welding, Cutting,
and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition,
effective July 15, 2019. This standard
covers provisions to prevent injury, loss
of life, and loss of property from fire or
explosion as a result of hot work.
• NFPA 59A, Standard for the
Production, Storage, and Handling of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019
Edition, effective November 25, 2018.
This standard provides minimum fire
protection, safety, and related
requirements for the location, design,
construction, security, operation, and
maintenance of LNG plants.
• NFPA 70, National Electrical Code,
2017 Edition, effective August 24, 2016.
The provisions of this standard apply to
the design, modification, construction,
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62676
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
inspection, maintenance, and testing of
electrical systems, installations, and
equipment.
• NFPA 251, Standard Methods of
Tests of Fire Resistance of Building
Construction and Materials, 2006
Edition, effective August 18, 2005. This
standard provides methods of fire tests
applicable to assemblies of masonry
units and to composite assemblies of
structural materials for buildings,
including bearing and other walls,
partitions, columns, girders, beams,
slabs, and composite slab and beam
assemblies for floors and roofs. This
standard also applies to other
assemblies and structural units that
constitute permanent integral parts of a
finished building.
The proposed section that references
these standards and the locations where
these standards are available is listed in
§ 127.003. If you disagree with our
analysis of these standards or are aware
of voluntary consensus standards that
might apply but are not listed, please
send a comment explaining your
disagreement or identifying additional
standards to the docket using one of the
methods listed in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01,
Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions
on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
This proposed rule would be
categorically excluded under paragraphs
A3 and L54 in Appendix A, of Table 1
of DHS Directive Instruction Manual
023–01, Rev. 1.30 Paragraph A3 pertains
to promulgation of rules and other
guidance documents that interpret or
amend existing regulations without
changing its environmental effect.
Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations
that are editorial or procedural. We seek
30 https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%2002301-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin
%20Rev.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127
Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 127 as follows:
■ 1. The authority citation for part 127
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70011 and 70034; 46
U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Pub. L. 109–
241, sec. 304(c)(2).
2. Amend § 127.001 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word
‘‘existing’’;
■ b. Revise paragraph (c); and
■ c. Add paragraph (f).
The revision and addition reads as
follows:
■
■
§ 127.001
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d),
and 127.019(b) of subpart A of this part
apply to the marine transfer area for
LNG of each inactive facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Waterfront facilities handling LNG
and LHG constructed, expanded, or
modified under a contract awarded after
November 4, 2020 are required to
comply with the applicable standards
referenced in § 127.003. All other
facilities, unless expanded or modified
in accordance with this part, are
required to meet previously applicable
standards but may request to apply a
later edition of the standards in
accordance with § 127.017.
■ 3. Revise § 127.003 to read as follows:
§ 127.003
Incorporation by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the Coast Guard must publish a
document in the Federal Register and
the material must be available to the
public. All approved material is
available for inspection at the U.S. Coast
Guard, Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards (CG–OES),
2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE,
STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593–
7509, 202–372–1410, and is available
from the sources listed below. It is also
available for inspection at the National
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030 or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html. See § 127.017 for
alternative compliance methods.
(a) API, 200 Massachusetts Avenue
NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC
20001–5571, 202–682–8000, https://
www.api.org.
(1) API Recommended Practice 2003,
Protection Against Ignitions Arising Out
of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents,
Eighth Edition, September 2015, (‘‘API
RP 2003’’), IBR approved for
§ 127.1101(h).
(2) [Reserved]
(b) ASME, Two Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016–5990, 800–843–2763,
https://www.asme.org.
(1) ASME B16.5–2017, Pipe Flanges
and Flanged Fittings, NPS 1⁄2 Through
NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard,
November 20, 2017, IBR approved for
§ 127.1102(a).
(2) ASME B31.3–2018, Process Piping,
ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31,
August 30, 2019, IBR approved for
§ 127.1101(a).
(c) ASTM International, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 610–
832–9500, https://www.astm.org.
(1) ASTM F 1121–87 (Reapproved
2015), Standard Specification for
International Shore Connections for
Marine Fire Applications, approved
May 1, 2015, IBR approved for
§§ 127.611 and 127.1511.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) DNV GL, Veritasveien 1, 1363
Hovik, Norway, +47 6757 9900, https://
www.dnvgl.com.
(1) DNV GL, Recommended Practice,
DNVGL–RP–G105, Development and
Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas
Bunkering Facilities, October 2015
Edition, IBR approved for § 127.008(d).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) IEC International Electrotechnical
Commission, 3 rue de Varembe, 1st
floor, P.O. Box 131, CH 1211,
Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, https://
www.iec.ch.
(1) IEC 60079–29–1, Edition 2.0,
Explosive Atmospheres—Part 29–1: Gas
Detectors—Performance Requirements
of Detectors for Flammable Gases, July
2016, IBR approved for § 127.1203(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(f) ISO-International Organization for
Standardization, BIBC II, Chemin de
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier,
Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11,
https://www.iso.org.
(1) ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines
for Systems and Installations for Supply
of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition,
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
15 January 2015, (‘‘ISO 18683’’), IBR
approved for § 127.008(d).
(2) ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum
and Natural Gas Industries—Installation
and Equipment for Liquefied Natural
Gas—Ship-to-Shore Interface and Port
Operations, First Edition, 15 December
2010, (‘‘ISO 28460’’), IBR approved for
§ 127.008(e).
(g) NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169–7471, 800–344–
3555, https://www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable
Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition,
effective April 21, 2017, IBR approved
for §§ 127.603(a) and 127.1503.
(2) NFPA 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code, 2018
Edition, effective September 6, 2017,
IBR approved for §§ 127.313(b) and
127.1313(b).
(3) NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire
Prevention During Welding, Cutting,
and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition,
effective July 15, 2019, IBR approved for
§§ 127.405(b) and 127.1405(b).
(4) NFPA 59A, Standard for the
Production, Storage, and Handling of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019
Edition, effective November 25, 2018,
IBR approved for §§ 127.008(d), 127.101
introductory text, and (a) through (g),
127.201(b) and (c), 127.405(a) and (b),
and 127.603(a).
(5) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code,
2017 Edition, effective August 24, 2016,
IBR approved for §§ 127.107(a) and (c),
127.201(c), and 127.1107.
(6) NFPA 251, Standard Methods for
Tests of Fire Resistance of Building
Construction and Materials, 2006
Edition, effective August 18, 2005, IBR
approved for § 127.005.
■ 3. In § 127.005, revise the definitions
of ‘‘Facility’’ and ‘‘Fire endurance
rating’’ and add a definition for ‘‘LNG
fuel facility’’ to read as follows:
§ 127.005
Definitions.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
Facility means either a waterfront
facility handling LHG or a waterfront
facility handling LNG, and includes
LNG fuel facilities.
Fire endurance rating means the
duration for which an assembly or
structural unit will contain a fire or
retain structural integrity when exposed
to the temperatures specified in the
standard time-temperature curve in
NFPA 251 (incorporated by reference,
see § 127.003).
*
*
*
*
*
LNG fuel facility means a waterfront
facility that handles LNG for the sole
purpose of providing LNG from shorebased structures to vessels for use as a
marine fuel, and that does not transfer
LNG to or receive LNG from vessels
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
capable of carrying LNG in bulk as
cargo.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 127.007 as follows:
■ a. Revise the section heading, and
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e);
■ b. Redesignate paragraph (h) as
paragraph (i);
■ c. Redesignate paragraph (g) as
paragraph (h);
■ d. Add paragraphs (g) and (j).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 127.007 Letter of intent and waterway
suitability assessment for waterfront
facilities handling LNG or LHG.
(a) An owner or operator intending to
build a new facility handling LNG or
LHG, or an owner or operator planning
new construction to expand marine
terminal operations in any facility
handling LNG or LHG, where the
construction or expansion would result
in an increase in the size and/or
frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic
on the waterway associated with a
facility, must submit a Letter of Intent
(LOI) to the Captain of the Port (COTP)
of the zone in which the facility is or
will be located. The LOI must meet the
requirements in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) An owner or operator intending to
reactivate an inactive facility must
submit an LOI that meets paragraph (c)
of this section to the COTP of the zone
in which the facility is located.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) An owner or operator intending to
build a new LNG or LHG facility, or an
owner or operator planning new
construction to expand marine terminal
operations in any facility handling LNG
or LHG, where the construction or
expansion would result in an increase
in the size and/or frequency of LNG or
LHG marine traffic on the waterway
associated with a facility, must file or
update as appropriate a waterway
suitability assessment (WSA) with the
COTP of the zone in which the facility
is or will be located. The WSA must
consist of a Preliminary WSA and a
Follow-on WSA. A COTP may request
additional information during review of
the Preliminary WSA or Follow-on
WSA.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) An owner or operator intending to
build a new LNG facility must submit
the preliminary WSA no later than the
date that the owner or operator files a
pre-filing request with FERC under 18
CFR parts 153 or 157. The LOI must
include the nation of registry for, and
the nationality or citizenship of the
officers and crew serving on board,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62677
vessels transporting LNG that are
reasonably anticipated to be servicing
the LNG facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) An owner or operator intending to
construct a new LNG fuel facility or
modify any LNG fuel facility, or
reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility
may comply with § 127.008 in lieu of
meeting the requirements in this
section.
■ 5. Add § 127.008 to read as follows:
§ 127.008 Letter of intent and operational
risk assessment for LNG fuel facilities.
(a) An owner or operator intending to
build a new LNG fuel facility, modify
construction of any LNG fuel facility, or
reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility
electing to complete an operational risk
assessment in lieu of a WSA as outlined
in § 127.007, must submit a Letter of
Intent (LOI) and an operational risk
assessment to the Captain of the Port
(COTP) of the zone in which the LNG
fuel facility is or will be located at least
1 year prior to the start of LNG transfer
operations.
(b) Each LOI must contain the
information in § 127.007(c)(1) through
(5).
(c) The owner or operator who
submits an LOI under paragraph (a) of
this section must notify the COTP in
writing within 15 days of any of the
following:
(1) There is any change in the
information submitted under paragraph
(b) of this section; or
(2) No LNG fuel transfer operations
are scheduled within the next 12
months.
(d) The operational risk assessment
required by paragraph (a) must:
(1) Be carried out in accordance with
Chapter 7 of ISO 18683:2015(E) and
Appendix D of DNVGL–RP–G105; or
Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A (all
incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003); or other industry developed
risk assessment method acceptable to
the Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards, Commandant
(CG–OES); and
(2) Consider possible factors affecting
the ship/shore interface and port
operations described in Section 6 of ISO
28460:2010(E) (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003).
■ 6. Amend § 127.009 by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 127.009
Letter of recommendation.
(a) After the COTP receives the
information and analyses required by
§ 127.007 or § 127.008, the COTP issues
a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to
the suitability of the waterway for LNG
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62678
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
or LHG marine traffic or the operational
safety and security of the LNG fuel
facility to the Federal, State, or local
government agencies having jurisdiction
for siting, construction, and operation,
and, at the same time, sends a copy to
the owner or operator, based on the—
(1) Information submitted under
§§ 127.007 or 127.008;
*
*
*
*
*
§ 127.011
[Amended]
7. Amend § 127.011 by removing the
word ‘‘shall’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘must’’.
■ 8. In § 127.015, revise paragraphs
(c)(1) and (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 127.015
Appeals.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Appeal that ruling in writing to the
Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, (CG–5P), 2703
Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop
7509, Washington, DC 20593–7509; and
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The Assistant Commandant for
Prevention Policy issues a ruling after
reviewing the appeal submitted under
paragraph (c) of this section, which is
final agency action.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. In § 127.017, revise the introductory
text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 127.017
Alternatives.
(a) The COTP may allow alternative
procedures, methods, or equipment
standards, including alternatives to
standards listed in § 127.003, to be used
by an operator instead of any
requirements in this part if—
*
*
*
*
*
§ 127.019
[Amended]
10. Amend § 127.019 as follows:
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), remove
the word ‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ‘‘must’’;
and
■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the word
‘‘existing’’.
■ 11. Revise § 127.101 to read as
follows:
■
■
(g) Annex B.
12. Amend § 127.107 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 127.107
(a) The electrical power system must
have a power source and a separate
emergency power source, so that failure
of one source does not affect the
capability of the other source. The
system must meet NFPA 70
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If an auxiliary generator is used as
an emergency power source, it must
meet Section 700.12 (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003).
■ 13. In § 127.201, revise paragraphs
(b)(2), (c)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
§ 127.201
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Design and construction:
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Meet section 16.4 of NFPA 59A
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003).
(c) * * *
(1) Be in each enclosed or covered
Class I, Division 1, hazardous location
defined in section 500.5(B)(1) of NFPA
70 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003) and each area in which
flammable or combustible material is
stored; and
(2) Meet section 16.4 of NFPA 59A
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003).
§ 127.301
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
§ 127.319
§ 127.321
§ 127.401
§ 127.403
§ 127.311
[Amended]
16. In § 127.311(a), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
[Amended]
17. Amend § 127.313 as follows:
■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (b), remove ‘‘Chapter
4 of’’ and add ‘‘(incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’ after ‘‘NFPA
30’’.
§ 127.315
[Amended]
§ 127.405
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Repairs.
The operator must ensure that—
(a) * * *
(1) The equipment continues to meet
the applicable requirements in this
subpart and in NFPA 59A (incorporated
by reference, see § 127.003); and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Welding is done in accordance
with NFPA 51B and Section 10.4.3 of
NFPA 59A (both incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003).
[Amended]
25. In § 127.407 (a), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
[Amended]
26. In § 127.409(a), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■ 27. In § 127.603, revise paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
■
§ 127.603
Portable fire extinguishers.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Portable fire extinguishers that
meet section 16.6.1 of NFPA 59A and
Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 (both
incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003); and
*
*
*
*
*
§ 127.611
[Amended]
28. In § 127.611, remove ‘‘ASTM F
1121’’ and add, in its place, the text
‘‘ASTM F 1121–87’’.
■
§ 127.613
18. In § 127.315, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
[Amended]
23. In § 127.403, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■ 24. In § 127.405, revise the
introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1)
and (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 127.409
15. In § 127.309, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
[Amended]
22. In § 127.401, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.309
■
[Amended]
21. In § 127.321, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
■
[Amended]
[Amended]
20. In § 127.319, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.407
[Amended]
[Amended]
19. In § 127.317, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
14. In § 127.301(b), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
■
The marine transfer area for LNG
must meet the following criteria in
NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference,
see § 127.003):
(a) Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.7;
(b) Chapter 6, Section 6.7;
(c) Chapter 10;
(d) Chapter 11, except Sections 11.9,
and 11.10;
(e) Chapter 12;
(f) Chapter 15, except Sections 15.4
and 15.6; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Sensing and alarm systems.
*
§ 127.313
§ 127.101
General.
Electrical power systems.
§ 127.317
[Amended]
29. In § 127.613, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
§ 127.615
[Amended]
§ 127.1301
30. In § 127.615, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.617
§ 127.1302
■
[Amended]
■
§ 127.701
§ 127.1309
[Amended]
■
§ 127.701
§ 127.1311
■
■
■
■
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Amended]
[Removed]
§ 127.1315
38. Remove § 127.711.
[Amended]
51. In § 127.1315 remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1101
[Amended]
39. Amend § 127.1101 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove ‘‘ASME
B31.3’’ and add, in its place, the text
‘‘ASME B31.3–2018 (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (h), add
‘‘(incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003)’’ after ‘‘API RP 2003’’.
■
■
§ 127.1102
§ 127.1317
[Amended]
40. In § 127.1102(a)(4)(ii), remove
‘‘ANSI B16.5’’ and add, in its place,
‘‘ASME B16.5–2017 (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’.
§ 127.1321
[Amended]
41. In § 127.1103, remove the word
‘‘existing’’ wherever it appears.
§ 127.1325
[Amended]
42. In § 127.1105, remove the word
‘‘existing.’’
§ 127.1401
[Amended]
43. In § 127.1107, add ‘‘(incorporated
by reference, see § 127.003)’’ after
‘‘NFPA 70’’.
§ 127.1203
[Amended]
44. In § 127.1203(a), remove ‘‘ANSI
S12.13, Part I’’ and add, in its place,
‘‘IEC 60079–29–1 (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 127.1207
Jkt 253001
§ 127.1403
[Amended]
57. In § 127.1403, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
[Amended]
58. Amend § 127.1405 as follows:
a. In the introductory paragraph,
remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its
place, the word ‘‘must’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the
word ‘‘and’’; and
■
■
45. In § 127.1207(c), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
56. Remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add,
in its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
§ 127.1405
[Amended]
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
[Amended]
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00065
[Amended]
60. In § 127.1409, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
§ 127.1501
[Amended]
61. In § 127.1501 (a), remove the word
‘‘existing.’’
§ 127.1503
[Amended]
62. In § 127.1503, add ‘‘(incorporated
by reference, see § 127.003)’’ after
‘‘NFPA 10’’.
■
§ 127.1511
[Amended]
63. In § 127.1511, remove ‘‘ASTM F
1121’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘ASTM F
1121–87’’.
■
§ 127.1601
[Amended]
64. In § 127.1601, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1603
[Amended]
65. In § 127.1603, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1605
[Amended]
66. In § 127.1605, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
Dated: September 18, 2020.
R. V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020–21071 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
[Amended]
55. In § 127.1325, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
■
§ 127.1107
[Amended]
54. In § 127.1321, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
■
§ 127.1105
[Amended]
53. In § 127.1319, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
■
§ 127.1103
[Amended]
52. In § 127.1317, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1319
§ 127.1409
■
50. Amend § 127.1313 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (b), remove ‘‘Chapter
4 of’’ and add ‘‘(incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’ after ‘‘NFPA
30’’.
37. Remove § 127.709.
§ 127.711
[Amended]
■
■
36. Remove § 127.707.
§ 127.709
■
§ 127.1313
[Removed]
[Amended]
59. In § 127.1407, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
49. In § 127.1311, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
35. Remove § 127.705.
§ 127.707
[Amended]
■
[Removed]
34. Remove § 127.703.
§ 127.705
■
[Removed]
§ 127.1407
■
48. In § 127.1309, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
33. Remove § 127.701.
§ 127.703
[Amended]
47. In § 127.1302, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
32. Remove the undesignated center
heading ‘‘Security’’ that precedes
§ 127.701.
■
c. In paragraph (b), add ‘‘(incorporated
by reference, see § 127.003)’’ after the
text ‘‘NFPA 51B’’.
■
46. In § 127.1301(b), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
31. In § 127.617, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
[Amended]
62679
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0001; FRL–10014–
83–Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; ID; 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the State of Idaho
(Idaho or the State) that addresses the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62651-62679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21071]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 127
[Docket No. USCG-2019-0444]
RIN 1625-AC52
Operational Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling
Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations concerning
waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) and
liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The proposed rule would make the
following three changes. First, the proposed rule would revise the
Coast Guard's existing regulations to allow waterfront facilities
handling LNG as fuel to conduct an operational risk assessment instead
of a waterway suitability assessment (WSA) without first obtaining
Captain of the Port approval. Second, the proposed rule would revise
existing regulations to update incorporated technical standards to
reflect the most recent published editions. Third, for waterfront
facilities handling LNG that must comply with the WSA requirements, the
proposed rule would require these facilities to provide information to
the Coast Guard regarding the nation of registry for vessels
transporting natural gas that are
[[Page 62652]]
reasonably anticipated to be servicing the facilities, and the
nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board those
vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before December 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0444 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
Collection of information. Submit written comments and
recommendations for the proposed information collection discussed in
section VIII.D of this preamble within 30 days of publication of this
notice to the Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of
Management and Budget. For submission to OIRA use www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information collection
select ``Currently under Review'' or use the search function.
Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make
arrangements to view this material by calling the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Copies of
the material are also available as indicated in the ``Incorporated by
Reference'' in Sec. 127.003 in the proposed regulatory text.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager, Coast Guard, Vessel and
Facility Operating Standards Division, Commandant (CG-OES-2); telephone
202-372-1413, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Executive Summary
IV. Basis and Purpose
V. Background
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If you cannot submit your
material by using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for
alternate instructions. Documents mentioned as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be available in our online docket
at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions. Additionally, if you visit the online docket
and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are
posted or if a final rule is published.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
We do not plan to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so
if our consideration of public comments indicates a meeting would be
helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce
the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
ANSI American National Standards Institute
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
COI Collection of Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-OES Coast Guard, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards
COTP Captain of the Port
DNV GL Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd
ECA Emission Control Area
FR Federal Register
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GSA General Services Administration
HAZID Hazard Identification
IBR Incorporated by reference
ICR Information collection request
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LOI Letter of Intent
LOR Letter of Recommendation
LHG Liquefied hazardous gas
LNG Liquefied natural gas
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORA Operational risk assessment
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Authorities
SBA Small Business Administration
SME Subject Matter Expert
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WSA Waterway suitability assessment
III. Executive Summary
The purpose of this proposed rule is to amend the regulations
concerning waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG)
and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) in 33 CFR part 127. The proposed rule
would make the following three changes.
First, the proposed rule would add new Sec. 127.008 to allow
waterfront facilities handling LNG as fuel (LNG fuel facilities \1\) to
conduct an operational risk assessment (ORA) instead of a waterway
suitability assessment (WSA), without first obtaining Captain of the
Port (COTP) approval. By allowing LNG fuel facilities to use an ORA in
lieu of a WSA without submitting an alternative request and meeting
with the COTP, the proposed rule would reduce the regulatory burden on
LNG fuel facilities by reducing the scope of the analysis and the
amount of information facility owners would have to submit to the Coast
Guard. Currently, there are three existing LNG fuel facilities. The
Coast Guard anticipates 1 new LNG fuel facility would become
operational every year in the next 10 years. Reducing the regulatory
burden could result in lower
[[Page 62653]]
fuel costs, and thereby increase the maritime industry's level of
interest in converting or constructing vessels to use LNG as a marine
fuel to comply with stricter emissions standards and realize economic
advantages.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We propose to add a new definition for LNG fuel facility to
mean a waterfront facility that handles LNG for the sole purpose of
providing LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a
marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from
vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
\2\ See the report by the Congressional Research Service, titled
``LNG as a Maritime Fuel: Prospects and Policy'' (dated February 5,
2019) at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45488.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the proposed rule would update the technical standards
already incorporated by reference in part 127 to reflect the most
recent published editions of these standards. We have determined that
modified, expanded, and new LNG fuel facilities, waterfront facilities
handling LNG, and waterfront facilities handling LHG are built to the
most recent industry standards available at the time of modification,
expansion, or construction and not the outdated standards currently
codified in 46 CFR part 127. Therefore, owners and operators would not
incur any cost to meet the updated standards. The Coast Guard
anticipates these updated industry standards would apply to one new LNG
fuel facility, two new waterfront facilities handling LNG, and three
new waterfront facilities handling LHG per year in the next 10 years.
Third, for waterfront facilities handling LNG that must comply with
the WSA requirements in Sec. 127.007, the proposed rule would require
these facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard at the time
the WSA is submitted regarding the nation of registry for vessels
transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be
servicing the facilities and the nationality of citizenship of officers
and crew serving on board those vessels. We are proposing this change
to assist us in meeting our obligation under Sec. 304(c)(2) of the
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241).
This statute requires the Coast Guard, when operating as a contributing
agency in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shoreside
licensing process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to provide
this information to FERC. The Coast Guard anticipates two waterfront
facilities handling LNG that must submit a WSA would be affected
annually by this proposed change.
Eliminating the requirement to submit an alternative request and
meet with the COTP to obtain approval before conducting an ORA in lieu
of a WSA would result in cost savings to the LNG fuel facility owner.
This change is deregulatory under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777,
with annualized cost savings to both industry and the government of
approximately $16,843 using a 7-percent discount rate.
IV. Basis and Purpose
The Ports and Waterways Safety Authorities (PWSA) (46 U.S.C.
chapter 700), authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating to take certain actions to advance port,
harbor, and coastal facility safety and security. Specifically,
sections 70011 and 70034 of Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish
standards for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage, and
movement of hazardous materials on a vessel and waterfront facility on
or along U.S. navigable waters as necessary to protect the vessel,
structure, water, or shore area. The Secretary has delegated this
authority to the Commandant of the Coast Guard (DHS Delegation
0170.1(II)(70)). The purpose of the proposed rule is to revise existing
regulations for the assessment of LNG fuel facilities by reducing
unnecessary requirements; update technical standards applicable to
waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG; and implement a statutory
provision for waterfront facilities handling LNG that must complete a
WSA.
V. Background
A. International Maritime Organization (IMO) Emissions Standards and
LNG as a Marine Fuel
The IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI,\3\ first adopted in 1997, limits the main
air pollutants contained in ships exhaust gas, including sulfur oxides
and nitrous oxides, and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone
depleting substances. MARPOL Annex VI also provides for the
establishment of Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), which are waters close
to coastlines where more stringent emissions controls may be imposed.
Under MARPOL Annex VI, the North American ECA came into force on August
1, 2012. A possible option for vessel operators to meet the more
stringent fuel oil sulfur content standards of the ECA is to install
LNG-fueled engines, because such engines emit only trace amounts of
sulfur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MARPOL Annex VI has been incorporated into U.S. law by the
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to comply with these stricter IMO emissions standards and
realize economic advantages associated with the increasing LNG supply,
there has been a growing interest by the maritime industry in
converting existing vessels and constructing new vessels to use LNG as
a marine fuel. The maritime industry is also considering a variety of
methods for supplying LNG to vessels for use as a marine fuel,
including delivery from vessels (such as barges and small tank vessels)
or from shore-based structures on waterfront facilities handling LNG
(such as storage tanks, mobile tank trucks, and rail cars).
B. Existing Regulations for Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG
Existing regulations for waterfront facilities handling LNG are
contained in 33 CFR part 127. Although originally written to address
large quantities of LNG that are imported or exported as cargo at large
storage facilities,\4\ 33 CFR part 127, by virtue of the definition of
a waterfront facility handling LNG,\5\ also applies to LNG transferred
between vessels and shore-based structures including tank trucks and
rail cars for use as fuel. Part 127 outlines requirements pertaining to
general information, general design, equipment, operations,
maintenance, firefighting, and security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See final rule, titled ``Liquefied Natural Gas Waterfront
Facilities'' (53 FR 3370, dated February 5, 1988).
\5\ 33 CFR 127.005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 127.007 contains the Letter of Intent (LOI) and WSA
requirements, including the Preliminary WSA and Follow-on WSA
requirements. The WSA examines the risk of transporting large volumes
of LNG through connected waterways and the transfer of LNG to or from
waterfront facilities handling LNG. The Coast Guard developed the WSA
requirement to address safety and security risks potentially presented
by LNG carriers traveling to or from waterfront facilities handling
LNG.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See final rule, titled, ``Revision of LNG and LHG Waterfront
Facility General Requirements'' (75 FR 29420, dated May 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The facility owner or operator submits the LOI and WSA documents to
the Coast Guard. The LOI must contain: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the owner and operator; (2) the name, address, and
telephone number of the Federal, State, or local agency having
jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation; (3) the name,
address, and telephone number of the facility; (4) the physical
location of the facility; (5) a description of the facility; (6) the
LNG vessels' characteristics and the frequency of LNG shipments to or
from the facility; and (7) charts showing waterway channels and
identifying commercial, industrial, environmentally sensitive,
[[Page 62654]]
and residential areas in and adjacent to the waterway used by the LNG
vessels en route to the facility, within at least 25 kilometers (15.5
miles) of the facility (33 CFR 127.007(c)).
The Preliminary WSA must contain an analysis of the following
topics: (1) Port characterization; (2) characterization of the LNG
facility and the LNG tank vessel route; (3) risk assessments for
maritime safety and security; (4) risk management strategies; and (5)
resource needs for maritime safety, security, and response. It must
also contain a section listing recommended risk mitigation measures and
conclusions (33 CFR 127.007(f)(2)).
This information gives the COTP the opportunity to identify any
issues or factors that might have been overlooked when considering the
various potential safety and security impacts the LNG marine traffic
may have on the port and associated waterways. It also provides an
opportunity for the project sponsor and the COTP to identify the
stakeholders at the port who should be consulted when developing the
Follow-on WSA. The Follow-on WSA provides a complete analysis of the
topics outlined in the Preliminary WSA and identifies credible security
threats and navigational safety hazards for the LNG marine traffic,
along with appropriate risk management strategies and the resources
needed to carry them out. The information obtained in the LOI and WSA
enables the Coast Guard to provide specific recommendations, in a
Letter of Recommendation (LOR) described in Sec. 127.009, as to the
suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic to the Federal,
State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for siting,
construction, and operation.
C. Alternative Coast Guard Procedures
Coast Guard regulations in Sec. 127.017 allow facility operators
to request alternative procedures to those in Sec. 127.007 if the
alternative provides at least the same degree of safety provided by the
regulations. An owner or operator seeking to use an alternative
procedure should identify the ``gaps'' where requirements cannot be met
or are not appropriate and should explain what alternatives the Coast
Guard should consider instead. Whenever possible, owners and operators
should reference existing standards, practices, and procedures to help
substantiate the request.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See CG-OES Policy Letter No. 02-15, ``Guidance Related to
Vessels and Waterfront Facilities Conducting LNG Marine Fuel
Transfer (Bunkering) Operations.'' This document is available at
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/Operating%20and%20Environmental%20Standards/OES-2/Policy%20Letters/CG%20OES%20Policy%20Letter%2002-15%20signature%20with%20Enclosures.pdf?ver=2017-07-21-124107-000.
See also 80 FR 10131 (Feb. 25, 2015) (notice of availability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the construction of three LNG fuel facilities, the Coast
Guard met with the facility owners to discuss Federal regulations that
would apply to their projects. During those discussions, the owners
indicated that it was inappropriate for their projects to conduct a WSA
under Sec. 127.007 because their intended operations did not include
use of the waterway. Unlike waterfront facilities handling LNG that
receive large quantities of LNG that are imported or exported as cargo
on large tankships on the waterway, their LNG fuel facilities would
receive LNG from shore-based sources using tank trucks. Instead of
conducting a WSA for their projects, they requested to conduct an ORA
focused specifically on their intended operations.
Based on information provided by these facility owners that: (1)
LNG would not be delivered to the facility by a vessel on the waterway;
(2) incidents involving LNG would be limited to the location of the
facility; (3) the quantity of LNG stored at the facility would be
relatively small compared to larger waterfront facilities handling LNG
that import or export LNG as cargo; and (4) the quantity of LNG stored
on vessels as fuel would not pose as much of a safety concern to the
port as larger tankships that transport LNG to larger waterfront
facilities handling LNG to be imported or exported as cargo, the Coast
Guard agreed that COTPs could allow the use of ORAs as an alternative
to WSAs under Sec. 127.017.
Since ORAs and WSAs follow similar procedures for assessing risk,
the Coast Guard is proposing to modify the scope of assessments to be
conducted for LNG fuel facilities to focus on operations solely taking
place at the facilities, provided that LNG is not delivered to the
facilities by LNG tank vessels. If an LNG fuel facility would receive
LNG by vessel, an assessment of the waterway--that is, a WSA--would
need to be carried out to determine the impact of the proposed
operations on the port and waterway.
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under this proposed rule, prospective applicants seeking
authorization to build, modify, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel
facility would be allowed to submit an LOI and an ORA to the Coast
Guard, which would enable us to provide specific recommendations, in a
LOR described in Sec. 127.009, to agencies having jurisdiction.
Eliminating the requirement to submit an alternative request and meet
with the COTP to obtain approval before conducting an ORA in lieu of a
WSA would eliminate unnecessary paperwork associated with analysis of a
waterway not being used by the facility and provide regulatory
certainty for future LNG fuel facility project proponents.
By eliminating unnecessary paperwork and reducing the regulatory
burden on facility owners and operators, the Coast Guard is promoting
the goals of Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. Reducing the regulatory
burden and increasing cost savings could increase the maritime
industry's level of interest in converting existing vessels and
constructing new vessels that use LNG as a marine fuel to comply with
stricter emissions standards.
For waterfront facilities handling LNG that must conduct a WSA
under proposed Sec. 127.007, the proposed rule would require these
facilities to submit to the Coast Guard, at the time the WSA and LOI
are submitted, information on the nation of registry for, and the
nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board,
vessels transporting LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be
servicing those facilities. This proposed change would implement the
statutory mandate in section 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241) requiring the Coast Guard
to provide this information to FERC when the Coast Guard is operating
as a contributing agency in the FERC shoreside licensing process for an
onshore or near-shore LNG terminal. This is the most efficient way to
comply with the statutory requirement that we provide this information
to FERC.
The proposed rule would also update the technical standards found
in the existing regulations that would be applicable to waterfront
facilities handling LNG and LHG.
We provide a section-by-section description in the following
paragraphs of our proposed amendments to 33 CFR part 127, subparts A
through C, in section number order with topical headings.
Subpart A--General
Proposed Revisions to Authorities Listed for Part 127
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the authority citation for this
Part by removing 33 U.S.C. 1231 and adding, in its place, 46 U.S.C.
70034. This reflects the changes made by the Coast Guard
[[Page 62655]]
Authorization Act of 2018,\8\ which re-codified the Ports and Waterways
Safety Program into Title 46 of the U.S.C. The Coast Guard also
proposes to add 46 U.S.C. 70011 to the list of existing statutory
authorities for this Part, to make it clear that 46 U.S.C. 70011
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1225) authorizes the Coast Guard to take such
action as is necessary to (1) prevent damage to, or the destruction of,
any bridge or other structure on or in the navigable waters of the
United States, or any land structure or shore area immediately adjacent
to such waters; and (2) protect the navigable waters and the resources
therein from harm resulting from vessel or structure damage,
destruction, or loss. Authorized actions under this section include,
among other things, establish standards for the handling, loading,
unloading, storage, stowage, and movement of hazardous materials on a
vessel or structure on or along U.S. navigable waters, as necessary to
prevent damage to, or the destruction of, any bridge or other structure
on or in the navigable waters of the United States, or any land
structure or shore area immediately adjacent to such waters; and
protect the navigable waters and the resources therein from harm
resulting from vessel or structure damage, destruction, or loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Public Law 115-282, December 4, 2018, 132 Stat 4192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.001 Applicability
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the word, ``existing'' from
paragraphs (a) and (c) because the term as it is currently defined in
Sec. 127.005 does not cover waterfront facilities handling LNG
constructed after 1988. This is a problem because if it is not removed,
paragraphs (a) and (c) would only apply to new waterfront facilities
handling LNG and waterfront facilities handling LNG that were built
before 1988. In order to ensure paragraphs (a) and (c) apply to all LNG
facilities, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the term ``existing.''
The Coast Guard also proposes to amend paragraph (c) by removing a
reference to Sec. 127.701, which contains security requirements for
the marine transfer area for LNG of inactive facilities. These security
requirements are now contained in 33 CFR part 105, subpart B, and apply
to facilities subject to part 127. The reference to Sec. 127.701 is
duplicative and no longer needed.
A new paragraph (f) is proposed to clarify the standards approved
for incorporation by reference in Sec. 127.003 only apply to
facilities constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded
after the implementation date of the final rule. As used in this
section, we consider ``constructed'' to mean construction of a new
facility, ``expanded'' to mean changes to a facility that was
previously constructed that results in an increase in the storage
capacity or operations at the facility and ``modified'' to mean changes
made to a facility that was previously constructed that does not result
in increased storage capacity or operations (e.g., the addition of a
sprinkler system in an area where one did not previously exist). A
facility being expanded or modified would only need to apply the
applicable new standards that are involved in the action to expand or
modify the facility. All other facilities, unless expanded or modified
in accordance with part 127, would be required to meet previously
applicable standards but may request to apply later editions of the
standards in accordance with Sec. 127.017.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.003 Incorporation by Reference
The Coast Guard proposes to amend this section by updating the
technical standards to reflect the most recent published editions of
the standards. We encourage the use of these updated standards because
they reflect the best available technologies, practices, and procedures
that are recommended by consensus bodies and other groups with
experience in the industry. However, only waterfront facilities
handling LNG and LHG constructed, expanded, or modified under a
contract awarded after the implementation date of the final rule would
be required to meet the applicable requirements outlined in the most
recent editions of these standards. Existing facilities may voluntarily
request authorization to apply the updated standards, but they will
only be required to apply the standards that applied to them prior to
the implementation date of the final rule.
The following is the list of the standards we propose to update:
American Petroleum Institute (API) standard, API
Recommended Practice 2003, Protection Against Ignitions Arising Out of
Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth Edition, September 2015.
This standard presents the current state of knowledge and technology in
the fields of static electricity and stray currents applicable to the
prevention of hydrocarbon ignition in the petroleum industry, and it is
based on both scientific research and practical experience. The 2015
edition builds on the technically sound work presented in prior
editions. It emphasizes the need to maintain awareness and the
continuing need to develop and use sound procedures for controlling
hazards and minimizing the possible static ignition risks associated
with handling hydrocarbons.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standard,
ASME B16.5-2017, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS \1/2\ through
NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard, November 20, 2017. This standard covers
pressure-temperature ratings, materials, dimensions, tolerances,
marking, testing, and methods of designating openings for pipe flanges
and flanged fittings. The 2017 edition adds the use of size NPS 22, and
updates materials and working pressures. The current regulations
reference a 1988 edition of the standard, including 1992 addenda and
errata. But the current regulations use the term ``ANSI'' rather than
``ASME.'' We propose to correctly identify the current name of the
standard.
ASME B31.3-2018, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure
Piping, B31, August 30, 2019. This standard contains requirements for
piping typically found in petroleum refineries; chemical,
pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic plants;
and related processing plants and terminals. It covers materials and
components, design, fabrication, assembly, erection, examination,
inspection, and testing of piping. The 2018 edition standardizes the
use of SI metric units for some purposes and U.S. Customary units for
others, and provides a table for conversion of units.
ASTM standard, ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2015), Standard
Specification for International Shore Connections for Marine Fire
Applications, approved May 1, 2015. This standard covers the
specifications for the design and manufacture of international shore
connections to be used with marine firefighting systems during an
emergency when a stricken ship has a system failure. This standard has
continued to be reapproved since development and has not changed. We
are merely incorporating the most recent published edition of this
standard.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC
60079-29-1, Edition 2.0, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 29-1: Gas
Detectors--Performance Requirements of Detectors for Flammable Gases,
July 2016. This standard specifies general requirements for
construction, testing, and performance and describes the test methods
that apply to portable, transportable, and fixed apparatus for the
detection and measurement of flammable gas or vapor concentrations with
air. This standard superseded
[[Page 62656]]
ANSI S12.13, Part I, Performance Requirements, Combustible Gas
Detectors (1986 Edition), which is currently incorporated by reference
in the regulations.
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 10, Standard for
Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective April 21, 2017.
This standard applies to the selection, installation, inspection,
maintenance, recharging, and testing of portable extinguishing
equipment and Class D extinguishing agents. The 2018 edition includes
clarifications on electronic monitoring, obsolete extinguishers,
extinguishers in areas containing oxidizers, extinguisher signs, and
mounting equipment and cabinets.
NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018
Edition, effective September 6, 2017. This standard applies to the
storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids,
including waste liquids. The 2018 edition incorporates essential safety
updates and references to current UL standards, as well as completely
revised requirements for general purpose warehouses.
NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding,
Cutting and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2019. This
standard covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life, and loss of
property from fire or explosion as a result of hot work. In the 2019
edition, the scope was modified to clarify that the standard is
intended to be used for preventing injuries and not just loss of life
during hot work operations. The purpose was also revised to clarify
that the standard provides requirements for everyone involved in hot
work operations.
NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and
Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective
November 25, 2018. This standard provides minimum fire protection,
safety, and related requirements for the location, design,
construction, security, operation, and maintenance of LNG plants. The
2019 edition presents a reorganization of the requirements for plant
siting and layout to facilitate better focus and implementation of the
requirements contained in the standard. This edition also includes new
requirements under which a single-wall ASME container with
supplementary design and fabrication requirements can be safely
implemented for storage at small-scale LNG facilities.
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2017 Edition, effective
August 24, 2016. The provisions of this standard apply to the design,
modification, construction, inspection, maintenance, and testing of
electrical systems, installations and equipment. The 2017 edition
addresses the advancement of privately-owned wind and solar power
generation and distribution equipment, including coverage of higher
voltage systems that were once only the utilities' domain.
NFPA 251, Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of
Building Construction and Materials, 2006 Edition, effective August 18,
2005. This standard provides methods of fire tests applicable to
assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural
materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls, partitions,
columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies
for floors and roofs. This standard also applies to other assemblies
and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a
finished building. The time temperature curve of NFPA 251 referenced in
the definition of fire endurance rating in Sec. 127.005 has not
changed. We are merely incorporating the most recent published edition
of NFPA 251.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to add three new standards to the
list of technical standards incorporated by reference in Sec. 127.003
to provide requirements to LNG fuel facilities on conducting ORAs. The
proposed new standards are--
Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL),
Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-G105, Development and Operation of
Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkering Facilities, October 2015 Edition. This
standard provides guidance to the industry on development,
organizational, technical, functional, and operational issues in order
to ensure global compatibility and secure a high level of safety,
integrity, and reliability for LNG bunkering (fueling) facilities.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO/
TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines for Systems and Installations for Supply
of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition, 15 January 2015. This standard
gives guidance on the minimum requirements for the design and operation
of the LNG bunkering (fueling) facility, including the interface
between the LNG supply facilities and receiving ship.
ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries--Installation and Equipment for Liquefied Natural Gas--Ship-
to-Shore Interface and Port Operations, First Edition, 15 December
2010. This standard specifies the requirements for ship, terminal, and
port service providers to ensure the safe transit of an LNG carrier
through the port area and the safe and efficient transfer of its cargo.
The Coast Guard also proposes to amend the introductory text to
Sec. 127.003 by adding a reference at the end of the paragraph to
refer to Sec. 127.017 for alternative compliance methods. We propose
this change to clarify that later editions of the standards listed in
Sec. 127.003 could be considered as an acceptable alternative if they
can be shown to provide a degree of protection, safety, or performance
equal to or better than the standard we recognize and prior approval is
obtained by the COTP.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.005 Definitions
The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec. 127.005 by adding a new
definition for ``LNG fuel facility'' and by revising the existing
definitions for ``Facility'' and ``Fire endurance rating.'' We are
proposing to add the definition for ``LNG fuel facility'' to describe
waterfront facilities that handle LNG for the sole purpose of providing
LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel,
and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from vessels capable
of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo. We are proposing to revise the
definition of ``facility'' to specify it includes LNG fuel facilities.
The proposed revised definition of ``fire endurance rating'' is being
amended to reference the 2006 edition of NPFA 251; however, the time-
temperature curve referenced in the 2006 edition of NFPA 251 remains
the same as in the current incorporated by reference 1990 edition.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.007 Letter of Intent and Waterway
Suitability Assessment for Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG or LHG
The proposed rule would amend paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) by
removing the word ``existing'' from each paragraph because the term--as
it is currently defined in Sec. 127.005--does not cover waterfront
facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed after 1988 and 1996,
respectively. By removing the word, ``existing'' from paragraphs (a),
(b), and (e) it clarifies that the LOI and WSA requirements apply to
the new construction or expansion of any LNG or LHG facility that would
result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine
traffic on the waterway.
The proposed rule would redesignate existing paragraphs (g) and
(h), as paragraphs (h) and (i). We would also add a new paragraph (g)
to require an owner or operator intending to build a new LNG facility
to submit the WSA no later than the date that the owner or
[[Page 62657]]
operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 18 CFR 153 or 157,
and include the nation of registry for, and the nationality or
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting
natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the LNG
facility. We are proposing this change to assist us in meeting our
obligation under Sec. 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241), which requires the Coast
Guard, when operating as a contributing agency in the FERC shoreside
licensing process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to provide
this information to FERC.
Finally, in this section the Coast Guard proposes to add a new
paragraph (j) to clarify that an owner or operator intending to build
an LNG fuel facility, modify an LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an
inactive LNG fuel facility, may comply with the new requirements
proposed in Sec. 127.008 in lieu of the requirements in Sec. 127.007.
Proposed Addition of Sec. 127.008 Letter of Intent and Operational
Risk Assessment for LNG Fuel Facilities
The Coast Guard proposes to add this new section, which would
contain the LOI and new ORA submission requirements for owners or
operators of LNG fuel facilities. Since an LNG fuel facility would not
receive LNG from vessels, it is not associated with LNG tank vessel
traffic for which the WSA is designed. Instead, an analysis of the
safety and security of the marine transfer operation is appropriate.
ORAs are suitable for evaluating and identifying risks and mitigation
measures for situations involving quantities and delivery methods of
LNG that are much smaller than those associated with large quantities
of LNG that are imported or exported as cargo at large storage
facilities. In the event that an LNG fuel facility would receive LNG by
vessel using the waterway, a WSA would need to be carried out to
determine the impact of the proposed operations on the port and
waterway. The Coast Guard anticipates this proposed new section would
help lead to reduced costs for LNG fuel facilities because owners or
operators would no longer have to submit an alternative request and
meet with the COTP to obtain approval before conducting an ORA in lieu
of a WSA.
Proposed new paragraph (a) would require an owner or operator
seeking to build an LNG fuel facility, modify the construction of any
LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility electing
to complete an ORA in lieu of a WSA to submit an LOI to the Coast Guard
at least 1 year before LNG transfer operations begin. We propose to
allow an owner or operator the option of completing an ORA in lieu of a
WSA. This approach would give owners and operators the ability to make
appropriate business decisions in order to maintain flexibility for
future operations without compromising marine safety. An owner or
operator of an LNG fuel facility may initially provide LNG from shore-
based structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel from LNG
transported to the facility via a tank truck or rail car. This type of
operation would require completion of an ORA only. However, at a future
time the same facility may elect to receive LNG from vessels using the
waterway, which would then require completion of a WSA to ensure
potential impacts on the waterway due to increased LNG vessel traffic
are fully assessed.
Proposed new paragraph (b) would require the LOI to contain the
requirements listed in existing Sec. 127.007(c)(1) through (c)(5), as
follows: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the owner and
operator; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the agency
having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation; (3) the
name, address, and telephone number of the facility; (4) the physical
location of the facility; and (5) a description of the facility. If
there is any change in the information provided in the LOI, or if no
LNG fuel transfer operations are scheduled within the next 12 months,
proposed new paragraph (c) would require the owner or operator to
notify the Coast Guard in writing within 15 days of discovering this
information.
Proposed new paragraph (d)(1) would establish that the ORA must be
carried out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO 18683:2015(E) and
Appendix D of DNVGL-RP-G105, or Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A. The Coast Guard
selected these standards because the ISO standard and the DNVGL-RP were
created specifically to address LNG fuel facilities and are
complementary of each other (e.g., DNVGL-RP refers to ISO 18683). NFPA
59A was selected because it is the primary standard associated with how
LNG facilities are built and operated in the United States. This
paragraph would also allow an owner or operator of an LNG fuel facility
the ability to seek authorization by the Coast Guard to use another
voluntary consensus standard for risk assessment acceptable to the
Coast Guard. The proposed ORA would also have to consider possible
factors affecting the ship/shore interface and port operations
described in Section 6 of ISO 28460:2010(E), according to proposed new
paragraph (d)(2). The standards referenced in proposed new paragraphs
(d)(1) and (d)(2) contain requirements relative to conducting risk
assessments that are focused on providing LNG as fuel (bunkering
operations).
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.009 Letter of Recommendation
The Coast Guard proposes to amend this section to accommodate an
LOR based on an ORA. After the COTP receives the information and
analysis under the LOI and ORA requirements in Sec. 127.008, the COTP
will issue a LOR as to the operational safety and security of the LNG
fuel facility to the Federal, State, or local government agencies
having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation of the
facility and send a copy to the owner or operator of the proposed LNG
fuel facility. Currently, a LOR is issued after the COTP receives the
information and analysis under the LOI and WSA requirements in Sec.
127.007. The proposed amendment would add the issuance of a LOR when
the Coast Guard receives the information and analysis under proposed
new Sec. 127.008.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.015 Appeals
The Coast Guard proposes to revise paragraph (c)(1) to update the
mailing address for submitting appeals of District Commander rulings
related to actions taken by Coast Guard officials under part 127. We
also propose to revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to reflect a name
change for the office where appeals should be sent.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.017 Alternatives
We propose to amend paragraph (a) to clarify that the COTP may
consider alternative compliance methods. Newer editions of a standard
we incorporate by reference in Sec. 127.003 could be considered as
acceptable alternatives if they could be shown to provide a degree of
protection, safety, or performance equal to or better than the
incorporated standard.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.019 Operations Manual and Emergency
Manual: Procedures for Examination
We proposed to delete the word ``existing'' from paragraph (b) to
clarify that all waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG--regardless
of when they were constructed--must submit the information required in
Sec. 127.019.
[[Page 62658]]
Subpart B--Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.101 Design and Construction: General
The Coast Guard proposes to amend this section to reflect the
correct section references in the 2019 edition of NFPA 59A, which is
proposed to replace the 1994 edition. The standards referenced involve
plant siting and layout, piping systems and components, instrumentation
and electrical services, transfer systems for LNG, refrigerants, other
flammable fluids, and seismic design of LNG plants.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.107 Electrical Power Systems
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (a) to add the text
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003)'' to direct the reader
to more details about the material incorporated by reference.
Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (c) to
reflect the correct section references as contained in the 2017 edition
of the standard. This change is needed to ensure that auxiliary
generators and other sources of power comply with the latest edition of
NFPA 70, as indicated in Section 700.12 of this standard.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.201 Sensing and Alarm Systems
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) by
referencing section 16.4 of the 2019 edition of NFPA 59A. We also
propose amending paragraph (c)(1) by referencing section 500.5(B)(1) of
the 2017 edition of NFPA 70, which defines a Class 1, Division 1
location. The current regulations reference section 9-4 in the 1994
edition of NFPA 59A and section 500-5(a) in the 1993 edition of NFPA
70.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.313 Bulk Storage
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (b) by referencing the
2018 edition of NFPA 30. The current regulations reference Chapter 4 of
the 1993 edition, which pertains to the storage of containers and
portable tanks. The standard has been updated over the years, and
information that was once part of Chapter 4 has been relocated to
different chapters throughout the standard. Accordingly, we can no
longer reference a specific chapter and propose to adopt the standard
in total.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.405 Repairs
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) by
referencing the 2019 edition of NFPA 59A. In paragraph (b) we also
propose to reference the 2019 edition of NFPA 51B. The current
regulations reference the 1994 edition of NFPA 59A and the 1994 edition
of NFPA 51B. Section 10.4.3 of NFPA 59A and NFPA 51B relate to repairs
and identify specific requirements for welding and brazing.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.603 Portable Fire Extinguishers
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (a) by updating NFPA
59A to the 2019 edition and NFPA 10 to the 2018 edition. The current
regulations reference the 1994 edition of NFPA 10. Section 16.6.1 of
NFPA 59A and Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 relate to portable fire extinguishers
and identify specific requirements for portable and wheeled fire
extinguishers.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.611 International Shore Connection
In this section, the Coast Guard proposes to change ``ASTM F 1121''
to ``ASTM F 1121-87'' to reference the standard by its correct
designation and to reference the 2015 edition of this standard. The
standard ASTM F 1121-87 provides specifications for international shore
connections used in marine fire applications.
Proposed Removal of Sec. 127.701 Security on Existing Facilities;
Sec. 127.703 Access to the Marine Transfer Area for LNG; Sec. 127.705
Security Systems; Sec. 127.707 Security Personnel; Sec. 127.709
Protective Enclosures; and Sec. 127.711 Communications
The Coast Guard proposes to remove these sections from the CFR.
These regulations are no longer needed because facilities regulated
under part 127 are required to comply with the maritime security
regulations for facilities contained in 33 CFR part 105. See 33 CFR
105.105(a)(1). Therefore, it is no longer necessary to have security
regulations for facilities in part 127.
Subpart C--Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Hazardous Gas
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.1101 Piping Systems
In paragraph (a), the Coast Guard proposes to change ``ASME B31.3''
to ``ASME B.31.3-2018'' to reference the standard by its correct
designation and to reference the 2018 edition of this standard instead
of the 1993 edition. This standard pertains to process piping and
contains requirements for piping typically found in petroleum
refineries, including chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, paper,
semiconductor, cryogenic plants, and related processing plants and
terminals. We also propose to reference Sec. 127.003 with respect to
the reference to API Recommended Practice 2003 (API RP 2003) in
paragraph (h). This standard, as updated in 2015, outlines requirements
for protection against ignitions arising out of static, lightning, and
stray currents.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.1102 Transfer Hoses and Loading Arms
In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), the Coast Guard proposes to change
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard ``ANSI B16.5'' to
``ASME B16.5-2017'' to reference the standard by its correct
designation and to reference the 2017 edition of the standard. This
standard outlines design specifications for pipe flanges and flanged
fittings. The current regulations reference a 1988 edition of the
standard, but now uses the term ``ANSI'' rather than ``ASME.''
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.1103 Piers and Wharves and Sec.
127.1105 Layout and Spacing of Marine Transfer Area for LHG
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the word ``existing'' from these
sections to clarify that the regulations in Sec. Sec. 127.1103 and
127.1105 apply to new construction in the marine transfer area on all
LHG facilities and not just to ``existing'' LHG facilities.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.1203 Gas Detection
In paragraph (a), the Coast Guard proposes to change ``ANSI S12.13,
Part I'' to ``IEC 60079-29-1'' to reference the name of the standard by
which the original ANSI standard is now known. The current regulations
reference the 1986 edition of ANSI S.12.13, Part I. We propose to
incorporate by reference the July 2016 edition of IEC 60079-29-1, which
pertains to performance requirements of detectors for flammable gases.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.1313 Storage of Hazardous Materials
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (b) by referencing the
2018 edition of NFPA 30. The current regulations reference Chapter 4 of
the 1993 edition, which pertains to the storage of containers and
portable tanks. The standard has been updated over the years, and
information that was once part of Chapter 4 has been relocated to
different chapters throughout the standard. Accordingly, we can no
longer reference a specific chapter and intend to adopt the standard in
total.
[[Page 62659]]
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.1501 General
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the word ``existing'' to clarify
that Sec. 127.1501 applies to new construction on all LHG facilities
and not just to ``existing'' LHG facilities.
Proposed Revisions to Sec. 127.1511 International Shore Connection
In this section, the Coast Guard proposes to change ``ASTM F 1121''
to ``ASTM F 1121-87'' to reference the standard by its correct
designation and to reference the 2015 edition of this standard. The
standard ASTM F 1121-87 provides specifications for international shore
connections used in marine fire applications.
Technical Changes
In the following sections, we propose to remove the word ``shall,''
and replace it with the word ``must'' to more clearly convey these
sections contain requirements: Sec. Sec. 127.011, 127.019, 127.301,
127.309, 127.311, 127.313, 127.315, 127.317, 127.319, 127.321, 127.401,
127.403, 127.405, 127.407, 127.409, 127.613, 127.615, 127.617,
127.1207, 127.1301, 127.1302, 127.1309, 127.1311, 127.1313, 127.1315,
127.1317, 127.1319, 127.1321, 127.1325, 127.1401, 127.1403, 127.1405,
127.1407, 127.1409, 127.1601, 127.1603, and 127.1605. Additionally, in
Sec. Sec. 127.005, 127.101, 127.107, 127.201, 127.313, 127.405,
127.603, 127.611, 127.1101, 127.1102, 127.1107, 127.1203, 127.1313,
127.1405, and 127.1503, we propose to add the text ``(incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 127.003)'' to direct the reader to more details
about the materials incorporated by reference in the ``Incorporation by
reference'' section contained in Sec. 127.003. In Sec. 127.107, we
propose to delete ``National Electrical Code'' and insert ``NFPA'' in
its place to reflect the correct name of NFPA 70.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in Sec.
127.003. For information about how to view this material, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Copies of the material are
available from the sources listed in Sec. 127.003. Before publishing a
binding rule, we will submit this material to the Director of the
Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination,
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and
controlled through a budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS
considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
See the OMB Memorandum titled ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order
13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'''
(April 5, 2017). Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed
rule can be found in the rule's regulatory analysis below.
We performed our regulatory analysis for this proposed rule based
on the Coast Guard's PWSA authority to address safety and security
issues raised by the increased use of LNG by maritime vessels. The
Coast Guard is proposing to:
Modify current regulations to allow LNG fuel facilities
that do not receive LNG from vessels to conduct an ORA instead of the
WSA without first obtaining COTP approval per existing Sec. 127.007;
Update the technical standards currently referenced in 33
CFR part 127 to reflect the most recent published editions;
Amend the existing regulations by removing the word
``shall'' and replacing it with the word ``must''; and
Require a waterfront facility handling LNG that must
submit a WSA and LOI (LNG import/export facility) \9\ to provide
information to the Coast Guard on the nation of registry for, and the
nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board,
vessels transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be
servicing that facility if that information is known at the time the
facilities submit the documents to the COTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For the purpose of simplification, in this Regulatory
Analysis we refer to a waterfront facility handling LNG that must
submit a WSA as an ``LNG import/export facility'' because current
U.S. LNG operations involve only the import or export of LNG as
cargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 of this analysis provides a summary of the affected
population, cost savings, no cost changes, and unquantified benefits of
this proposed rule. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost
savings to industry of $16,157 (with a 7-percent discount rate), and an
annualized cost savings to the government of $690 (with a 7-percent
discount rate), for a total annualized cost savings of $16,847 in 2018
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..................... [check] New LNG import/export
facilities.
[check] New LNG Fuel Facilities.
[check] New LHG Facilities.
Affected Population............... [check] 20 new LNG import/export
facilities over the 10-year
analysis period.
[check] 10 new LNG Fuel Facilities
over the 10-year analysis period.
[check] 30 new LHG facilities over
the 10-year analysis period.
Costs Savings to Industry (7- [check] 10-year: ($113,482).*
percent discount rate).
[check] Annualized: ($16,157) *.
Costs Savings to Government (7- [check] 10-year: ($4,845) *.
percent discount rate).
[[Page 62660]]
[check] Annualized: ($690) *.
Perpetual period total cost [check] Annualized: ($11,527).
savings in 2016 dollars
discounted back to 2016 (7-
percent discount rate).
No cost changes................... [check] Update incorporated
technical standards to reflect the
most recent published editions.
[check] Require the LOI of a new LNG
import/export facility to include
information on the nation of
registry for, and the nationality
or citizenship of officers and crew
serving on board, vessels
transporting natural gas that are
reasonably anticipated to be
servicing that facility.
[check]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Costs are in 2018 Dollars.
Affected Population
There are currently 12 existing LNG import/export facilities, 3
existing LNG fuel facilities, and 106 existing LHG facilities that are
regulated under 33 CFR part 127. Table 2 presents the projected number
of LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG
facilities over the 10-year analysis period. Based on the Coast Guard's
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database on
activation dates of the 3 existing LNG fuel facilities and the
projected activation dates of 1 LNG fuel facility under construction,
the Coast Guard estimates that 10 new LNG fuel facilities would be
built during the 10-year analysis period, or 1 annually.\10\ Using
MISLE data on existing LNG import/export facilities, and FERCs list of
approved and proposed facilities, the Coast Guard estimates that 20 new
LNG import/export facilities would be built during the 10-year analysis
period, or 2 annually.\11\ Using MISLE data, the Coast Guard estimates
that 30 new LHG facilities would be built during the 10-year analysis
period, or 3 annually. However, as noted in the supporting statements
for the OMB-approved Information Collection Request (ICR) under Control
Number 1625-0049, the Coast Guard expects these new LHG facilities to
replace existing facilities for a static total population of 106
facilities.\12\ If you have comments about these population estimates,
please submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0444 using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The first LNG fuel facility in the U.S. became operational
in 2016. The second and third became operational in 2018 and 2019,
respectively. The fourth facility is anticipated to start operation
by the end of 2020.
\11\ Based on FERCs website on approved and proposed LNG import/
export facilities, 2 facilities would become active by the end of
2020, 1 facility would become active in 2021, 2 facilities would
become active in 2022, 3 facilities would become active in 2023, and
1 facility would become active in 2024. Hence, the Coast Guard has
determined that, on average, 2 new LNG import/export facilities
would become active annually. See https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/overview/lng.
\12\ The supporting statement for the OMB-approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) with a Control Number of 1625-0049 can be
found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-2016-0258-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 contains the number of new facilities to become operational
over a 10-year period of analysis.
Table 2--Total Facilities by Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG import/export facilities LHG Facilities LNG fuel facilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Existing New Existing New Existing New Retiring
facilities facilities Total facilities facilities Total facilities facilities facilities Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 12 2 14 3 1 4 106 3 3 106
2............................... 14 2 16 4 1 5 106 3 3 106
3............................... 16 2 18 5 1 6 106 3 3 106
4............................... 18 2 20 6 1 7 106 3 3 106
5............................... 20 2 22 7 1 8 106 3 3 106
6............................... 22 2 24 8 1 9 106 3 3 106
7............................... 24 2 26 9 1 10 106 3 3 106
8............................... 26 2 28 10 1 11 106 3 3 106
9............................... 28 2 30 11 1 12 106 3 3 106
10.............................. 30 2 32 12 1 13 106 3 3 106
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Analysis
Industry Cost Savings
The Coast Guard proposes to add new Sec. 127.008, which would
allow businesses that intend to build an LNG fuel facility, modify an
existing LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility
to complete an LOI and ORA instead of an LOI and a WSA under Sec.
127.007. The Coast Guard determined that conducting an ORA is more
appropriate than conducting a WSA because the waterfront facilities are
handling LNG for the sole purpose of providing LNG from shore-based
structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel, and they do not
transfer LNG to or receive LNG from vessels capable of carrying LNG in
bulk as cargo. The ORA is focused on the safety and security associated
with shore-based operations within the marine transfer area, whereas a
WSA focuses more on the risks and vulnerabilities of the waterway
associated with an LNG import/export facility. Although ORAs and WSAs
follow similar procedures for assessing risk, the Coast Guard
determined that the scope of the assessment for an LNG fuel facility
could be narrowed to focus on operations solely taking place at the
facility.
Currently, LNG fuel facilities have the option of submitting an
alternative request and completing a modified WSA or ORA that focuses
on operational risk, or the option of completing a traditional
[[Page 62661]]
WSA that focuses on waterway traffic, security, and navigational
hazards in addition to operational risk. As noted in the ``affected
population'' section of this analysis, there are currently three active
LNG fuel facilities and one other LNG fuel facility that is under
construction. Of these four facilities, three submitted alternative
requests and were granted permission to conduct an ORA under existing
alternative methods because the Coast Guard determined that an ORA was
more appropriate for their intended LNG operations. The other LNG fuel
facility chose to complete a WSA and thus did not submit an alternative
request. Based on this background information and discussions with
subject matter experts (SMEs) in the Coast Guard Office of Operating
and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), we estimate that 75 percent of
the LNG fuel facilities submitted an alternative request and completed
an ORA and the other 25 percent completed a WSA (see Table 3 below). If
you have comments concerning these estimates, please submit comments
identified by docket number USCG-2019-0444 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
According to the OMB-approved ICR for LNG and LHG facilities with
an OMB Control Number of 1625-0049, completing an alternative request
requires 2 clerical hours and 8 managerial hours. The mean hourly wage
rates for clerks and managers were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS reports that the mean hourly wage rates
for clerks and managers were $28.68 and $75.95 in 2018,
respectively.\13\ To account for the cost of employee benefits, such as
vacation time and health insurance, we multiplied the mean hourly wage
rates by a load factor of 1.65, resulting in a loaded mean hourly wage
rate of about $47.32 for a clerk ($28.68 x 1.65) and about $125.32 for
a manager ($75.95 x 1.65).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Coast Guard used 2018 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics for the natural
gas distribution sector using the North American Industry
Classification System with an industry code of 221200. Readers can
view the wage rates at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/naics4_221200.htm. Note that we used the occupational code of
Information and Record Clerks, OC 43-4000, as a proxy for the labor
category ``clerk'', and the occupational code of Architectural and
Engineering Managers, OC 11-9041, as a proxy for the labor category
``manager'' as a manager with some engineering knowledge is expected
to be involved in completing the alternative request.
\14\ To obtain the load factor, we divided the total cost for
employers by the wages and salaries of private workers for the
utility sector in December 2018, or $61.87/$37.60 = 1.65. Readers
can find this information in Table 10 of the Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation December 2018 News Release available at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the labor cost of completing
an alternative request to be about $1,097, which includes $94.64 in
clerical labor cost (2 clerical hours x $47.32 per hour) and $1,002.56
in managers labor cost (8 managerial hours x $125.32 per hour). With
the proposed rule, LNG fuel facilities would no longer submit an
alternative request to complete an ORA; therefore, each new facility
would have a one-time cost savings of $1,097 (we show the cost occurs
annually because of the assumption of one new facility entering service
each year). As shown in table 3, given that 75 percent of the new
facilities would submit an alternative request, the Coast Guard
estimates the annualized cost savings to industry to be about $823
using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 3--Discounted Cost Savings to Industry of No Longer Completing an Alternative Submission
[$2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
Total change of facilities Total cost Cost savings Cost savings
Year in cost completing savings discounted at 3% discounted at 7%
alternative
(a) (b) (c) (d) = (b) x (e) = (d) / (1.03) (f) = (d) / (1.07)
(c) \(a)\ \(a)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $799 $769
2............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $776 $719
3............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $753 $672
4............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $731 $628
5............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $710 $587
6............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $689 $548
7............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $669 $512
8............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $650 $479
9............................................................... $1,097 0.75 $823 $631 $448
10.............................................................. $1,097 0.75 $823 $612 $418
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. $8,229 $7,020 $5,780
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. $823 $823
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
As part of requesting an alternative approval to conduct an ORA,
the requesting party would meet with the COTP to discuss the
alternative. These meetings often require representatives of the
requesting firm to travel to meet with the COTP. For this reason, the
travel costs associated with these meetings mainly depend on the
distance between the facility and the firm's headquarters. Review of
the headquarters locations and the site locations of existing and under
construction LNG fuel facilities in our MISLE database suggests that 75
percent of the facilities are approximately an 80-mile round trip drive
from the COTP; therefore, the Coast Guard assumes the representatives
of these facilities would drive to the meeting. Flight travel would be
required for visits to the other 25 percent of facilities.\15\
Moreover, discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in the CG-OES revealed that
a meeting
[[Page 62662]]
would last for an average of 2 hours and involves two managerial
employees, one technical employee (engineer) and one outside consultant
hired by the firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Of the four LNG fuel facilities (three existing and one
projected to be operational in the future), three of the facilities
are, on average, within an 80-mile round trip from their respective
headquarters. One facility located in Jacksonville, FL, is an
approximately 1,700-mile round trip from its headquarters' location
in Houston, TX. Based on this information, we assume that 75 percent
of participants would drive while the other 25 percent would fly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard estimates that it would take approximately 2 hours
to complete the 80-mile round trip drive, and including driving time,
we estimate the duration of the meeting would take about 4 work hours.
The BLS reported a mean hourly wage rate for an engineer to be $51.33
in 2018; using a load factor of 1.65, we obtained a loaded mean hourly
wage rate of about $84.69 ($51.33 x 1.65).\16\ Discussions with
industry consultants revealed that the mean hourly wage rate for a
consultant completing WSAs and ORAs for LNG fuel facilities was about
$229 in 2017.\17\ Using the inflation factor of 1.0225, the Coast Guard
estimates the consultant mean hourly wage rate to be about $234 in 2018
dollars.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Coast Guard calculated an engineer's mean hourly wage
using 2018 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics'
Occupational Employment Statistics for the natural gas distribution
sector using the North American Industry Classification System with
an industry code of 221200. Readers can use the link https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/naics4_221200.htm. Note that the
occupational code for engineers is OC 17-2000.
\17\ Discussion with consultants reveal that, on average, in
2017, completing a WSA costs $114,585 and 500 hours. Based on this
information, the Coast Guard estimates the mean consultant wage rate
to be about $229.17 ($114,585/500 hours = $229.17 per hour) in 2017.
\18\ To obtain the inflation factor, we divided the GDP deflator
for 2018 (110.382) by the GDP deflator for 2017 (107.948), or
110.382/107.948 = 1.0225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard estimates the total labor cost per meeting when
industry representatives drive to the COTP to be about $2,277 annually,
which is the sum of $338.76 in engineer's labor cost (4 hours x
$84.69), $1,002.56 in manager's labor cost (2 managers x 4 hours x
$125.32), and $936 for the consultant's labor cost (4 hours x $234).
To calculate the cost of driving to the COTP's facility, the Coast
Guard used the 2018 General Services Administration (GSA) reimbursable
rate for personal vehicles, $0.54 per mile, which considers the cost of
fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and insurance.\19\ Accordingly, the
Coast Guard estimates that an 80-mile round trip drive to the COTP
costs about $43.20 (80 miles x $0.54 per mile) annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Readers can view the 2018 reimbursable rates for personal
vehicles at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-01-03/pdf/2017-28394.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the proposed rule, industry representatives would no longer
need to drive to meet with the COTP to submit and discuss the
alternative, resulting in an annual cost savings of $2,321 per meeting
($43 driving cost + $2,277 in labor cost). As shown in table 4, given
that about 56.5 percent of the new LNG fuel facilities would drive to
the COTP, the Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to
industry of no longer having to drive to the COTP to discuss an
alternative request to be about $1,299 using a 7-percent discount
rate.\20\ The Coast Guard estimates the discounted cost savings to
industry of no longer driving to meet with a COTP to be about $9,122
over a 10-year period of analysis using a 7-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We obtained 56.25 percent by multiplying the proportion of
facilities submitting alternative (75 percent) by the proportion
driving to the COTP (75 percent). i.e., 0.75 x 0.75 = 0.5625.
Table 4--Discounted Industry Cost Savings for No Longer Meeting With COTP (Driving)
[$2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
Year Travel cost Labor cost Total change of facilities Cost savings Cost savings Cost savings
in cost * discounted at 3% discounted at 7%
(a) (b) (c) (d) = (b) + (e) (f) = (d) x (g) = (f) / (h) = (f) /
(c) (e) (1.03) \(a)\ (1.07) \(a)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,262 $1,214
2....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,225 $1,135
3....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,189 $1,061
4....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,155 $991
5....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,121 $927
6....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,088 $866
7....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,057 $809
8....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $1,026 $756
9....................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $996 $707
10...................................... $43.20 $2,277 $2,321 0.56 $1,299 $967 $661
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ........... ........... .............. .............. $12,995 $11,085 $9,127
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................... ........... ........... .............. .............. .............. $1,299 $1,299
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* The fraction of facilities submitting an alternative for an ORA (0.75) multiplied by the fraction of industry representatives driving to the COTP
(0.75).
As stated above, 25 percent of the facilities submitting
alternative requests would need to fly to meet with the COTP. The Coast
Guard estimates that, including travel time, the trip would take
approximately 12 work hours. Accordingly, the labor cost per meeting
would be about $6,832, which is the sum of $1,016 for an engineer's
labor cost (12 hours x $84.69 per hour), $3,008 for a manager's labor
cost (2 managers x 12 hours x $125.32 per hour), and $2,808 for a
consultant's labor cost (12 hours x $234 per hour).
To calculate the cost of flying to the COTP's facility, the Coast
Guard first computed the cost of a plane ticket, hotel, rental car, and
per diem. The Coast Guard estimates the cost of each round trip flight
(non-stop) to be about $350, for a total flight cost of $1,400 (4
flight tickets x $350 per flight ticket).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (https://www.bts.gov/content/national-level-domestic-average-fare-series)
reports the average cost of a domestic U.S. flight on a quarterly
basis. The Coast Guard estimates the mean cost of domestic flight to
be $349.56 in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62663]]
The Coast Guard assumes that each individual would spend a total of 1
night in a hotel at a cost of $106 per night,\22\ for a total cost of
$424 (4 rooms x $106 per night). The Coast Guard assumes that the four
representatives would share a rental car estimated to cost $61 for
transit to and from the airport and the meeting.\23\ The Coast Guard
also assumes that each individual would need 2 days of meals and
incidental allowance (first and last day of travel), which is about $38
per day per person for a total of $304 ($38 per day x 2 days x 4).\24\
Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates the total cost of flight travel
to be about $2,189, which includes the cost of plane tickets ($1,400),
cost of overnight accommodations ($424), cost of a rental car ($61),
and per diem expenses ($304).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Coast Guard multiplied the 2018 standard GSA rate for
lodging, $93 (which can be found here: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/per-diem-rates-lookup/?action=perdiems_report&state=FL&fiscal_year=2016&zip=&city=), by
the mean lodging tax rate of 13.69 percent (which can be found on
page 7 of the HVS 2018 Lodging Tax Report: https://www.hotelnewsresource.com/pdf18/HVS092018.pdf) for a total cost of
$106 per night ($93 per night x 13.69 percent tax = $106 per night)
in 2018 dollars.
\23\ The Coast Guard used the $50 cost estimate of a round trip
airport transfer from the Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital
Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses
and Certificates of Registry Interim Rule (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-2004-17455-0001) as a proxy for
the cost of a round trip airport transfer, and traveling to and from
the meeting. We adjusted the $50 amount to 2018 dollars using an
inflation factor of 1.2556, which is obtained by dividing 2018 GDP
deflator (110.382) by 2006 GDP deflator (90.006), i.e., 110.382/
90.006 = 1.2256. So, we estimate the airport transfer cost to be
about $61 ($50 x 1.2256 = $61) in 2018 dollars.
\24\ The 2018 GSA rate for meals and incidental expenses for
first and last day of travel is $38.25 (See https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/per-diem-rates-lookup/?action=perdiems_report&state=FL&fiscal_year=2018&zip=&city=jacksonville).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard estimates that the proposed rule would result in an
annual cost savings of about $9,021 per meeting ($2,189 in
transportation cost and $6,832 in labor cost) as industry
representatives would no longer need to fly to meet with the COTP.
Given that 18.75 percent of the new LNG fuel facilities (one facility a
year) would choose to fly to meet with the COTP, the Coast Guard
estimates the annualized cost savings to industry of not flying would
be about $1,691 ($9,021 x 1 facility x 0.75 x 0.25) using a 7-percent
discount rate.\25\ Moreover, the Coast Guard estimates the discounted
or the present value cost savings to industry of no longer flying to
meet with the COTP to be $11,880 over a 10-year period of analysis
using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 5 for detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ We obtained 18.75% by multiplying the proportion of
facilities submitting alternative (75%) by the proportion flying to
the COTP (25%). i.e., 0.25 x 0.75 = 0.1875.
Table 5--Discounted Industry Cost Savings for No Longer Meeting with COTP (Flight)
[$2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
Year Travel cost Labor cost Total change of facilities Cost savings Cost savings Cost savings
in cost * discounted at 3% discounted at 7%
(a) (b) (c) (d) = (b) + (e) (f) = (d) x (g) = (f) / (h) = (f) x
(c) (e) (1.03) \(a)\ (1.07) \(a)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... $2,189 $1,642 $1,581 $0.1875 $1,691 $1,642 $1,581
2....................................... 2,189 1,594 1,477 0.1875 1,691 1,594 1,477
3....................................... 2,189 1,548 1,381 0.1875 1,691 1,548 1,381
4....................................... 2,189 1,503 1,290 0.1875 1,691 1,503 1,290
5....................................... 2,189 1,459 1,206 0.1875 1,691 1,459 1,206
6....................................... 2,189 1,417 1,127 0.1875 1,691 1,417 1,127
7....................................... 2,189 1,375 1,053 0.1875 1,691 1,375 1,053
8....................................... 2,189 1,335 984 0.1875 1,691 1,335 984
9....................................... 2,189 1,296 920 0.1875 1,691 1,296 920
10...................................... 2,189 1,259 860 0.1875 1,691 1,259 860
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ........... ........... .............. .............. 16,914 14,428 11,880
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................... ........... ........... .............. .............. .............. 1,691 1,691
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* The fraction of facilities submitting alternative (0.75) multiplied by the fraction flying to the COTP (0.25).
Based on reviews of data in MISLE and discussions with Coast Guard
SMEs, the Coast Guard determined that of the four LNG fuel facilities
(three existing and one under construction), three submitted an
alternative request and completed an ORA and one completed a WSA.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates that under the existing
regulatory requirements 25 percent of LNG fuel facilities would
complete a full WSA instead of submitting an alternative request.
Discussions with industry representatives suggest that consulting firms
hired by the facility to conduct WSAs and ORAs would take approximately
289 hours to complete an ORA and 500 hours to complete a WSA.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates the average cost to complete a
WSA to be $117,000 (500 consultant hours x $234 per hour) and the
average cost to complete an ORA to be $67,626 (289 consultant hours x
$234 per hour), for a cost savings of $49,374. Table 6 presents the
annualized cost savings to industry for completing an ORA in lieu of a
WSA. Given that only 25 percent of new facilities complete a WSA, the
Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost savings to industry of
completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA to be approximately $12,344 ($49,374
in cost savings x 1 facility x 0.25 of facilities that submit WSAs)
using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the total
discounted or present value cost savings of industry completing an ORA
in place of a WSA to be about $86,696 over a 10-year period of analysis
using a 7-percent discount rate.
[[Page 62664]]
Table 6--Discounted Cost Savings to Industry of Completing ORAs as Opposed to WSAs
[$2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
Total change of new LNG Total cost Cost savings Cost savings
Year in cost fuel savings discounted at 3% discounted at 7%
facilities
(a) (b) (c) (d) = (b) x (j) = (i) / (1.03) (k) = (i) / (1.07)
(c) \(a)\ \(a)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $49,374 0.250 $12,344 $11,984 $11,536
2............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 11,635 10,781
3............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 11,296 10,076
4............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 10,967 9,417
5............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 10,648 8,801
6............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 10,337 8,225
7............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 10,036 7,687
8............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 9,744 7,184
9............................................................... 49,374 0.250 12,344 9,460 6,714
10.............................................................. 49,374 0.250 12,344 9,185 6,275
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 123,435 105,293 86,696
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. 12,344 12,344
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Total Cost Savings to Industry
Table 7 contains the total cost savings to industry of removing the
requirements that LNG fuel facilities submit an alternative request and
meet with the COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. The Coast Guard
estimates the total present value or discounted cost savings to
industry of the proposed rule over a 10-year period of analysis to be
about $113,482 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. The
Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to industry to be
about $16,157 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 7--Total Industry Cost Savings
[$2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings item
----------------------------------------------------------
Industry cost Industry cost Total cost Cost savings Cost savings
Year Alternative for driving to for flying to ORA savings discounted at 3% discounted at 7%
submission meeting with meeting with instead of (undiscounted)
COTP COTP WSA
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) = (b) + (g) = (f) / (h) = (f) /
(c) + (d) + (1.03) \(a)\ (1.07) \(a)\
(e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... $823 $1,299 $1,691 $12,344 $16,157 $15,687 $15,100
2....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 15,230 14,112
3....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 14,786 13,189
4....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 14,356 12,326
5....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 13,937 11,520
6....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 13,532 10,766
7....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 13,137 10,062
8....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 12,755 9,404
9....................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 12,383 8,789
10...................................... 823 1,299 1,691 12,344 16,157 12,023 8,214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ........... .............. .............. ........... 161,573 137,825 113,482
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................... ........... .............. .............. ........... .............. $16,157 $16,157
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Changes With No Cost Impacts
The Coast Guard is proposing to incorporate by reference updated
and new industry standards that are available and known to the
industry. Based on discussions with an industry consultant and SMEs in
the CG-OES, the Coast Guard determined that new, expanded, and modified
LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG facilities
are built to the most current industry standards available at the time
of construction, expansion, or modification and not the outdated
standards currently codified in 33 CFR part 127. In addition, the new
industry standards do not apply to facilities constructed, expanded, or
modified under a contract awarded after the implementation date of the
final rule. Hence, the Coast Guard does not anticipate owners and
operators of new, expanded and modified facilities to incur any cost to
meet the updated or new industry standards. If you have comments
concerning this assumption, please submit comments identified by docket
number USCG-2019-0444 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 62665]]
In addition, as part of the LOI, the Coast Guard proposes to add
new paragraph Sec. 127.007(g) requiring an LNG import/export facility
that complete a WSA to provide information to the Coast Guard on the
nation of registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of officers
and crew serving on board, vessels transporting liquefied natural gas
that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility. This
requirement would only be applicable when a facility has to submit the
LOI and WSA to the Coast Guard and is not required every time a vessel
comes to port. Because both the LOI and WSA are submitted years before
the facility becomes operational, Coast Guard SMEs have determined that
it is highly unlikely any specific details regarding vessels and their
crew would be known at the time the LOI and WSA are submitted. Table 8
summarizes the proposed changes with no cost impacts. If you have
comments or have questions concerning the no cost determination
presented in Table 8, please submit comments identified by docket
number USCG-2019-0444 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Table 8--Summary of Proposed Changes to 33 CFR 127 With no Economic Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to baseline
Topic CFR section Facility type(s) requirements Cost impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority..................... .............. All.............. Revised the No cost.
authority citation to This change is
read as 46 U.S.C. administrative in
70011 and 70034; nature.
Department of
Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Applicability................. Sec. 127.001 All.............. Amended No cost.
paragraph (a) and (c) This change is
by removing the word administrative in
``existing'' because nature.
the term as it is
currently defined in
Sec. 127.005 does
not cover waterfront
facilities handling
LNG and LHG
constructed after
1988 and 1996,
respectively.
Inactive LNG fuel Amended No cost. The
and import/ paragraph (c) by Coast Guard has
export removing a reference determined that the
facilities. to Sec. 127.701, security
which contains requirements are now
security requirements covered under 33 CFR
for inactive LNG part 105 and thus
facilities. reference to Sec.
127.701 in paragraph
(c) is duplicative.
Accordingly,
removing the
requirement does not
have cost
implications
All.............. Waterfront No cost.
facilities handling This change is
LNG and LHG administrative in
constructed, expanded nature.
or modified under a
contract awarded
after [INSERT 30 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION IN
THE Federal Register]
are required to
comply with the
standards referenced
in Sec. 127.003.
All other facilities,
unless expanded or
modified in
accordance with this
part, are required to
meet the standards
that were in effect
at the time the
facilities were
constructed, but may
request to apply a
later edition of the
standards in
accordance with Sec.
127.017.
Incorporation by reference.... Sec. 127.003 All.............. Updated No cost. The
standards that are Coast Guard has
currently listed to determined that all
reflect the latest new LNG import/
edition of the export facilities,
standards available LNG fuel facilities,
and adding three new and LHG facilities
standards for would meet the most
incorporation by recent industry
reference (see standards in the
section ``Discussion absence of
of Proposed Rule'' of regulation.
this preamble for a
list of these
standards).
Definitions................... Sec. 127.005 All.............. Added new No cost.
definitions for ``LNG This change is
fuel facility'' and administrative in
modified the existing nature.
definitions for
``Facility'' and
``Fire endurance
rating.''.
LOI and WSA................... Sec. 127.007 New LNG import/ Amended No cost.
export paragraph (a), (b), This change is
facilities and and (e) by removing administrative in
LHG Facilities. the word ``existing'' nature
because the term as
it is currently
defined in Sec.
127.005 does not
cover waterfront
facilities handling
LNG and LHG
constructed after
1988 and 1996,
respectively.
New LNG Fuel Excluded LNG No cost.
Facilities. fuel facilities from This change is
this section because administrative in
they will be nature.
addressed in a new
Sec. 127.008.
[[Page 62666]]
New LNG import/ Added a new No cost. The
export paragraph (g) Coast Guard has
facilities. requiring a LNG determined that
import/export facilities with
facility to provide specific details
information to the regarding vessels
Coast Guard on the and their crew would
nation of registry of not be known at the
the vessels for, and time of LOI and ORA
the nationality or submission.
citizenship of
officers and crew
serving on board,
vessels transporting
natural gas that are
reasonably
anticipated to be
servicing that
facility.
Added a new No cost.
paragraph (j) to This change is
clarify that an owner administrative in
or operator intending nature.
to construct a new
LNG fuel facility or
modify any LNG fuel
facility, or
reactivate an
inactive LNG fuel
facility may comply
with Sec. 127.008
in lieu of meeting
the requirements in
this section.
LOI and ORA................... Sec. 127.008 New LNG Fuel Identified No cost. The
Facilities. industry standards Coast Guard has
related to conducting determined that all
risk assessments on new LNG fuel
LNG fuel facilities. facilities and LHG
facilities would
meet the most recent
industry standards
in the absence of
regulation.
Letter of Recommendation...... Sec. 127.009 All New Updated text No cost.
Facilities. to refer to Sec. This change is
127.008. administrative in
nature, and it only
clarifies that the
letter for
recommendation may
be sent after the
receipt of a WSA or
ORA.
Inspection of Waterfront Sec. 127.011 All New Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Appeals....................... Sec. 127.015 All New Updated the No cost.
Facilities. address of Coast This change is
Guard Headquarters. administrative in
Updated the nature.
name of the Coast No cost.
Guard office This change is
reviewing appeals. administrative in
nature.
Alternatives.................. Sec. 127.017 All New Added No cost.
Facilities. reference to Sec. This change is
127.003. administrative in
nature
Operations Manual and Sec. 127.019 All New Replaced the No cost.
Emergency Manual Procedures Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
for Examination. ``must.''. administrative in
Amended nature.
paragraph (b) by No cost.
removing the word This change is
``existing'' to administrative in
clarify that all its nature.
waterfront facilities
handling LNG and LHG
regardless of when
they were constructed
must submit the
information required
in Sec. 127.019.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG--Design and Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design and Construction Sec. 127.101 New LNG Updated No cost.
General. Facilities. references to NFPA This change is
59A chapters and administrative in
sections to reflect nature.
the numbering in the
most recent edition.
Electrical Power System....... Sec. 127.107 New LNG Added No cost. The
Facilities. references to Sec. Coast Guard has
127.003, determined that that
``Incorporation by all new LNG and LHG
reference.''. facilities would
Removed a meet the most recent
reference to the industry standards
National Electrical in the absence of
Code. regulation.
No cost.
This change is
administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG--Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensing and Alarm Systems..... Sec. 127.201 New LNG Added No cost. The
Facilities. references to Sec. Coast Guard has
127.003, determined that that
``Incorporation by all new LNG and LHG
reference.''. facilities would
Updated meet the most recent
references to NFPA industry standards
59A sections to in the absence of
reflect the numbering regulation.
in the most recent No cost.
edition. This change is
administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62667]]
LNG--Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons in Charge of Shoreside Sec. 127.301 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Transfer Operations: Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
Qualifications and ``must.''. administrative in
Certification. nature.
Operations Manual and Sec. 127.309 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Emergency Manual Use. Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Motor Vehicles................ Sec. 127.311 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Bulk Storage.................. Sec. 127.313 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
Added nature.
references to Sec. No cost. The
127.003, Coast Guard has
``Incorporation by determined that that
reference. all new LNG and LHG
facilities would
meet the most recent
industry standards
in the absence of
regulation.
Primary Transfer Inspection... Sec. 127.315 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Declaration of Inspection..... Sec. 127.317 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
LNG Transfer.................. Sec. 127.319 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Release of LNG................ Sec. 127.321 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG--Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance: General.......... Sec. 127.401 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Inspections................... Sec. 127.403 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Repairs....................... Sec. 127.405 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
Updated nature.
references to NFPA No cost. The
59A sections to Coast Guard has
reflect the numbering determined that all
in the most recent new LNG and LHG
edition. facilities would
Added meet the most recent
references to Sec. industry standards
127.003, in the absence of
``Incorporation by regulation.
reference.''.
Testing....................... Sec. 127.407 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Records....................... Sec. 127.409 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG--Fire Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable Fire Extinguishers... Sec. 127.603 New LNG Added No cost. The
Facilities. references to Sec. Coast Guard has
127.003, determined that that
``Incorporation by all new LNG and LHG
reference.''. facilities would
Updated meet the most recent
references to NFPA industry standards
59A sections to in the absence of
reflect the numbering regulation.
in the most recent No cost.
edition. This change is
administrative in
nature.
International Shore Connection Sec. 127.611 New LNG Added No cost. The
Facilities. references to Sec. Coast Guard has
127.003, determined that all
``Incorporation by new LNG and LHG
reference.''. facilities would
Updated the meet the most recent
referenced version of industry standards
ASTM F 1121-87. in the absence of
regulation.
Smoking....................... Sec. 127.613 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Fires......................... Sec. 127.615 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with These changes are
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Hotwork....................... Sec. 127.617 New LNG Replaced the No cost.
Facilities. word ``shall'' with These changes are
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62668]]
LNG--Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security on Existing Sec. 127.701 New LNG Removed the No cost.
Facilities. Facilities. section as the These changes are
requirements in this administrative in
section are no longer nature
needed because
facilities regulated
under part 127 are
required to comply
with the maritime
security facilities
regulations contained
in 33 CFR part 105.
Access to the Marine Transfer Sec. 127.703 New LNG Removed the No cost.
Area for LNG. Facilities. section as the These changes are
requirements in this administrative in
section are no longer nature.
needed because
facilities regulated
under part 127 are
required to comply
with the maritime
security facilities
regulations contained
in 33 CFR part 105.
Security Systems.............. Sec. 127.705 New LNG Removed the No cost.
Facilities. section as the These changes are
requirements in this administrative in
section are no longer nature.
needed because
facilities regulated
under Part 127 are
required to comply
with the maritime
security facilities
regulations contained
in 33 CFR part 105..
Security Personnel............ Sec. 127.707 New LNG Removed the No cost.
Facilities. section as the These changes are
requirements in this administrative in
section are no longer nature.
needed because
facilities regulated
under Part 127 are
required to comply
with the maritime
security facilities
regulations contained
in 33 CFR part 105.
Protective Enclosures......... Sec. 127.709 New LNG Removed the No cost.
Facilities. section as the These changes are
requirements in this administrative in
section are no longer nature.
needed because
facilities regulated
under part 127 are
required to comply
with the maritime
security facilities
regulations contained
in 33 CFR part 105.
Communications................ Sec. 127.711 New LNG Removed the No cost.
Facilities. section as the These changes are
requirements in this administrative in
section are no longer nature.
needed because
facilities regulated
under part 127 are
required to comply
with the maritime
security facilities
regulations contained
in 33 CFR part 105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHG--Design and Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping Systems................ Sec. New LHG Updated the No cost. The
127.1101 Facilities. referenced version of Coast Guard has
ASME B31.3. determined that all
Added new LNG and LHG
references to Sec. facilities would
127.003, meet the most recent
``Incorporation by industry standards
reference.''. in the absence of
regulation.
Transfer Hoses and Loading Sec. New LHG Updated the No cost. The
Arms. 127.1102 Facilities. referenced version of Coast Guard has
ASME B16.5. determined that all
Added new LNG and LHG
references to Sec. facilities would
127.003, meet the most recent
``Incorporation by industry standards
reference.''. in the absence of
regulation.
Piers and wharves............. Sec. New LHG.......... Removed the No cost.
127.1103 word ``existing'' These changes are
from this section to administrative in
clarify the nature.
requirements in this
section apply to new
constructions in the
marine transfer area
on all LHG
facilities, and not
just to ``existing''
facilities.
Layout and spacing of marine Sec. New LHG.......... Removed the No cost.
transfer area for LHG. 127.1105 word ``existing from These changes are
this section to administrative in
clarify the nature.
requirements in this
section apply to new
constructions in the
marine transfer area
on all LHG
facilities, and not
just to ``existing''
facilities.
[[Page 62669]]
Electrical Systems............ Sec. New LHG Added No cost. The
127.1107 Facilities. references to Sec. Coast Guard has
127.003, determined that all
``Incorporation by new LNG and LHG
reference.''. facilities would
meet the most recent
industry standards
in the absence of
regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHG--Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Detection................. Sec. New LHG Updated the No cost. The
127.1203 Facilities. referenced version of Coast Guard has
UL 60079-29-1.. determined that all
Added new LNG and LHG
references to Sec. facilities would
127.003, meet the most recent
``Incorporation by industry standards
reference.''. in the absence of
regulation.
Warning Alarms................ Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1207 Facilities. word ``shall'' with These changes are
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHG--Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons in Charge of Transfers Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
for the Facility: 127.1301 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
Qualifications and ``must.''. administrative in
Certification.. nature.
Training...................... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1302 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Operations Manual and Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
Emergency Manual Use. 127.1309 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Motor Vehicles................ Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1311 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Storage of Hazardous Materials Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1313 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
Added nature.
references to Sec.
127.003,
``Incorporation by
reference.''.
Preliminary Transfer Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
Inspection. 127.1315 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Declaration of Inspection..... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1317 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Transfer of LHG............... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1319 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Release of LHG................ Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1321 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Access to Marine Transfer Area Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
for LHG. 127.1325 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHG--Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General....................... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1401 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Inspections................... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1403 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Repairs....................... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1405 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
Added nature.
references to Sec. No cost. The
127.003, Coast Guard has
``Incorporation by determined that all
reference.''. new LNG and LHG
facilities would
meet the most recent
industry standards
in the absence of
regulation.
Tests......................... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1407 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Records....................... Sec. New LHG Replaced the No cost.
127.1409 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHG--Fire Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General....................... Sec. New LHG Amended this No cost.
127.1501 facilities. section by removing This change is
the word ``existing'' administrative in
to clarify that Sec. nature.
127.1501 applies to
new LHG facilities,
not just ``existing''
LHG facilities..
Portable Fire Extinguishers... Sec. New LHG Added No cost.
127.1503 Facilities. references to Sec. This change is
127.003, administrative in
``Incorporation by nature.
reference.''.
[[Page 62670]]
International Shore Connection Sec. New LHG Added No cost.
127.1511 Facilities. references to Sec. This change is
127.003, administrative in
``Incorporation by nature.
reference.''. No cost. The
Updated the Coast Guard has
referenced version of determined that all
ASTM F 1121-87. new LNG and LHG
facilities would
meet the most recent
industry standards
in the absence of
regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHG--Fire Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking....................... Sec. New LHG Replaces the No cost.
127.1601 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Hotwork....................... Sec. New LHG Replaces the No cost.
127.1603 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
Other Sources of Ignition..... Sec. New LHG Replaces the No cost.
127.1605 Facilities. word ``shall'' with This change is
``must.''. administrative in
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to Government
Under the current regulation in Sec. 127.017, the Coast Guard must
review alternative requests submitted by facilities seeking to conduct
a modified WSA. According to the most recent ICR for 33 CFR part 127
with an OMB Control Number of 1625-0049, reviewing an alternative
request requires 4 hours of enlisted staff time (2 hours of E-5 time
and 2 hours of E-6 time) and 1 hour of two officers' time combined (0.5
hours of O-2 time and 0.5 hours of O-3 time). To estimate the labor
cost of reviewing alternative requests, we used loaded hourly wage
rates of officers and enlisted staff members in Commandant Instruction
7310.1T, Coast Guard Reimbursable Standard Rates. For the 2018 fiscal
year, the loaded hourly wage rates for O-2, O-3, O-4, E-5, and E-6
employees were $69, $82, $97, $54, and $61, respectively.\26\
Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates the total labor cost of
reviewing an alternative request to be about $306, which includes $76
in officers labor cost [(0.5 hours of O-2 time x $69) + (0.5 hours of
O-3 time x $82)] and $230 in enlisted staff labor cost [(2 hours of E-5
time x $54) + (2 hours of E-6 time x $61)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Readers can find the wage rates of officers and enlisted
staff members on page 2 of Enclosure 2 of the Commandant Instruction
7310.1T. This document is available in the docket where indicated
under the Public Participation and Request for Comments section of
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities have currently
submitted an alternative request and given that there is only one
submission, the Coast Guard estimates annualized cost savings to the
Federal Government of no longer reviewing these requests to be about
$229 ($306 in cost saving x 1 facility x 0.75) using a 7-percent
discount rate.
In addition to reviewing the alternative request, Coast Guard staff
must also meet with representatives of the firm submitting the
alternative request. Discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in the CG-OES
revealed that the meeting lasts 2 hours and involves an O-3 and O-4
level staff of the Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates
the total labor cost of reviewing an alternative request to be $358 ((2
hours of O-3 time x $82) + (2 hours of O-4 time x $97)). Therefore,
given the assumption that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities would
submit alternative requests and given that there will be one
submission, the average annual cost savings to the Federal Government
of no longer meeting facility representatives would be $269 ($358 in
cost saving x 1 facility x 0.75), undiscounted.
Finally, the Coast Guard expects the Federal Government to save
money from reviewing an ORA when compared to a WSA. The OMB-approved
ICR with a Control Number of 1625-0049 reports that reviewing a WSA and
the corresponding Hazard Identification (HAZID) \27\ study requires 20
hours of enlisted staff time (10 hours of E-5 time and 10 hours of E-6
time) and 40 hours of officer time (20 hours of O-2 time and 20 hours
of O-3 time), costing approximately $4,170 ((10 hours of E-5 time x
$54) + (10 hours of E-6 time x $61) + (20 hours of O-2 time x $69) +
(20 hours of O-3 time x $82)). Based on discussions with Coast Guard
SMEs in Sector Jacksonville, reviewing an ORA and the corresponding
HAZID study requires 38 hours of officer time (19 hours of O-3 time and
19 hours of O-4 time), costing about $3,401 ((19 hours of O-3 time x
$82) + (19 hours of O-4 time x $97)). Accordingly, the Coast Guard
estimates that the cost savings from reviewing an ORA instead of a WSA
is about $769 ($4,170--$3,401), undiscounted. Therefore, given only 25
percent of the LNG facilities currently conduct a WSA instead of
submitting an alternative request, the Coast Guard estimates the
annualized cost savings to the government of reviewing an ORA instead
of a WSA to be about $192 ($769 in cost savings x 1 facility x 0.25)
using a 7-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ A HAZID study is carried out to identify the main risks
that can occur during LNG transfers from an LNG fuel facility to a
receiving vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 presents the total cost savings to the Federal Government
of the proposed change that would eliminate the requirement to submit
an alternative request and meet with the COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu
of a WSA. The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted or present
value cost to the Federal Government over a 10-year period of analysis
to be about $4,845 using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard
estimates the annualized cost savings to the Federal Government to be
about $690 using a 7-percent discount rate.
[[Page 62671]]
Table 9--Total Government Cost Savings
[$2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings item
--------------------------------------------------
Year Alternative Meeting with Total cost Cost savings Cost savings
submission industry Reviewing WSAs savings discounted at 3% discounted at 7%
review representatives
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (b) + (c) + (f) = (e) / (1.03) (g) = (e) / (1.07)
(d) \(a)\ \(a)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... $229 $269 $192 $690 $670 $645
2......................................... 229 269 192 690 650 603
3......................................... 229 269 192 690 631 563
4......................................... 229 269 192 690 613 526
5......................................... 229 269 192 690 595 492
6......................................... 229 269 192 690 578 460
7......................................... 229 269 192 690 561 430
8......................................... 229 269 192 690 545 402
9......................................... 229 269 192 690 529 375
10........................................ 229 269 192 690 513 351
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. .............. ................ .............. 6,899 5,885 4,845
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized........................ .............. ................ .............. .................. 690 690
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Total Cost Savings
Table 10 summarizes the total costs of this proposed rule to
industry and the Federal Government for the 10-year period of analysis.
The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted or present value cost to
industry and the Federal Government over a 10-year period of analysis
to be about $118,328 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
We estimate the annualized cost savings to be about $16,847 in 2018
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. Using a perpetual period of
analysis, the Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost savings
of this notice of proposed rulemaking to be $11,527 in 2016 dollars and
discounted back to 2016 using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 10--Total Cost Savings to Industry and the Federal Government
[$2018]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted cost savings
Year Industry cost Government Total cost -------------------------------
savings cost savings savings 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $16,157 $690 $16,847 $16,357 $15,745
2............................... 16,157 690 16,847 15,880 14,715
3............................... 16,157 690 16,847 15,418 13,752
4............................... 16,157 690 16,847 14,969 12,853
5............................... 16,157 690 16,847 14,533 12,012
6............................... 16,157 690 16,847 14,109 11,226
7............................... 16,157 690 16,847 13,698 10,492
8............................... 16,157 690 16,847 13,299 9,805
9............................... 16,157 690 16,847 12,912 9,164
10.............................. 16,157 690 16,847 12,536 8,564
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 161,573 6,899 168,472 143,710 118,328
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............. .............. .............. .............. 16,847 16,847
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Alternatives
While developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard considered
three alternatives to the proposed rule. We present a summary of the
alternatives below and show their corresponding impact and cost savings
in table 11.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
In this alternative, the Coast Guard would accept the status quo
and review each proposal for an LNG fuel facility on a case-by-case,
equivalency basis. We rejected this alternative because the Coast Guard
believes this approach is inefficient in an environment of growing
interest in LNG fuel because it does not respond to the needs of the
U.S. maritime industry. This alternative would not impose any
additional costs on industry, nor would LNG fuel facilities receive any
cost savings from submitting an ORA as opposed to a WSA.
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA, but Do Not Update the IBR Standards
Alternative
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would reduce industry
burden by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of
a WSA. This alternative would not impose any additional costs to
industry. We rejected this alternative because the Coast Guard would
not be updating the existing incorporated by reference (IBR)
[[Page 62672]]
standards and regulations would continue to reference outdated
standards instead of reflecting industry best practices and the best
technologies available to industry.
Alternative 3: Continue To Meet With the COTP When Submitting the ORA
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would allow new LNG fuel
facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA as long as the facility
representatives meet with the COTP and get the ORA approved. Although
this alternative is less burdensome compared to the baseline, the Coast
Guard rejected this alternative because it would require industry
representatives to continue meeting with the COTP in person to discuss
the ORA. A requirement to meet the COTP would needlessly impose greater
burden than the proposed rule without providing an improvement in
safety sufficient to justify the difference in burden.
Table 11--Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized total
Alternative cost savings Impact of the alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule........................... $16,847 Codifies industry standards establishing national
baseline safety standards and alleviating
discrepancies and unnecessary duplication between
regulatory standards and industry best practices.
In addition, the NPRM reduces the burden to
industry by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to
submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having
to submit an alternative request and meet with the
COTP to obtain approval.
Alternative 1: No Action................ 0 Does not codify minimum safety standards, respond to
industry needs, or reduce industry burden. It does
not impose any additional costs.
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA, but do not 16,847 The alternative would reduce the burden to industry
update the IBR Standards Alternative. by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to submit an
ORA instead of a WSA without first having to submit
an alternative request and meet with the COTP to
obtain approval. However, this alternative would
not codify minimum safety standards. This
alternative would not impose any additional costs
to industry.
Alternative 3: Continue to Meet with the 13,166 The alternative codifies industry standards
COTP when submitting an ORA. establishing national baseline safety standards. In
addition, the alternative reduces the burden to
industry by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to
submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having
to submit an alternative request and meet with the
COTP to obtain approval. However, this alternative
still requires meeting with the COTP, making it
more burdensome compared to the NPRM. This
alternative would not impose any new cost to
industry, but has less cost savings compared to
Alternative 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the Coast
Guard considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. Below is a threshold analysis of the
small entity impacts.
The proposed rule would apply to new LNG fuel facilities, LNG
import and export facilities, and new LHG facilities.
LNG Fuel Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined the proposed rule would have no cost
or a cost savings impact on existing LNG fuel facilities and would
generate cost savings to one new facility per year. In particular, the
Coast Guard estimates that the proposed rule would generate a cost
savings of about $16,153, using 7-percent discount rate, to one new LNG
fuel facility per year. To estimate the potential impact on small
entities, the $16,153 in cost saving has to be compared with the annual
revenue data of the new LNG fuel facility impacted by the proposed
rule. The Coast Guard determined that an entity would have to have an
annual revenue of $1,615,300 or less for the proposed rule to have an
impact greater than 1 percent of revenue.
Moreover, using the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size
standards table,\28\ the Coast Guard has determined that two of the
four LNG fuel facilities are small entities. These two small entities
have a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of
213112 and 541990. Based on SBA's size standards table, the size
standard for these codes are $38.5 million and $15 million,
respectively. Publicly available data suggests that the annual revenue
of the two facilities are about $2.4 million and about $3.8 million.
Thus, conservatively assuming the new LNG fuel facility would have
annual revenues equivalent to the smallest entity in the industry, the
Coast Guard estimates that the economic impact, in the form of cost
savings, of the proposed rule would be approximately 0.673 percent of
revenue (($16,153/$2,400,000) x 100 = 0.673).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Readers can view industry size standards at the following
link https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards
(accessed 07/11/2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No not-for-profit organizations are involved with LNG fuel
facilities. In addition, this proposed rule would not have an adverse
or beneficial impact on small government entities.
LNG Import and Export Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule would have no
cost or a cost savings impact on existing and new LNG import/export
facilities. Moreover, no not-for-profit organizations are involved with
LNG import/export facilities. This proposed rule would not have an
adverse or beneficial impact on small government entities.
LHG Facilities
The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule would have no
cost or a cost savings impact on existing and new LHG facilities.
Moreover, no not-for-profit organizations are involved with LHG
facilities. This proposed rule would not have an adverse or beneficial
impact on small government entities.
As noted above, the Coast Guard has determined that the economic
impact on the affected small entities is not significant. Thus, the
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
[[Page 62673]]
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
to the docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how
and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a revised collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information''
comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and
other similar actions. The title and description of the information
collection, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.
Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and
Liquefied Hazardous Gas.
OMB Control Number: 1625-0049.
Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard currently
collects information from waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG
under 33 CFR part 127. The current information collection request (ICR
201609-1625-002, OMB Control Number 1625-0049) contains requirements in
the following sections: LOIs, WSAs, the submission of appeals to the
Coast Guard, the submission of alternatives to the Coast Guard,
Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, Certification of the Person in
Charge, Declaration of Inspection, and Records of Maintenance. In
addition, the proposed rule would add a new collection of information
for ORA submissions for new LNG fuel facilities.
Need for Information: The Coast Guard has regulations that provide
safety standards for the design and construction, equipment,
operations, maintenance, personnel training, and fire protection at
waterfront facilities handling LNG. These regulations help reduce the
probability that an accident could occur and help reduce the damage and
injury to persons and property should an accident occur.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard currently uses the information
collected under OMB Control Number 1625-0049 for the following
purposes: (1) Determine the suitability of a waterfront facility
handling LNG to safely conduct LNG fuel transfer operations; (2)
properly evaluate alternative procedures to ensure they provide at
least the same degree of safety as the regulations; (3) ensure that
safe operating procedures and an effective training program are set up
by the waterfront facility operator; (4) ensure that effective
procedures have been set up by the waterfront facility operator to
respond to emergencies; ensure the person in charge of an LNG or LHG
transfer is properly qualified; and (5) verify that persons in charge
are following proper transfer procedures.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are LNG import/
export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG facilities.
Number of Respondents: The currently approved number of respondents
for this collection of information is 156 respondents, comprised of 143
LHG facilities and 13 waterfront facilities handling LNG (2 LNG fuel
facilities and 11 LNG import/export facilities). Based on the most
recent population data from MISLE, the current number of respondents is
121, comprised of 106 LHG facilities and 15 waterfront facilities
handling LNG (3 LNG fuel facilities and 12 LNG import/export
facilities). The Coast Guard anticipates the number of waterfront
facilities handling LNG would increase by three annually (two new LNG
import/export facilities and one LNG fuel facility). The Coast Guard
also anticipates three new LHG facilities would replace three retiring
facilities annually, maintaining the number of LHG facilities at 106
throughout the 10-year period of analysis. Accordingly, the number of
respondents is anticipated to be 124 (106 LHG facilities + 14 LNG
import/export facilities + 4 LNG fuel facilities) respondents in year
1; 127 (106 LHG facilities + 16 LNG import/export facilities + 5 LNG
fuel facilities) respondents in year 2; and 130 (106 LHG facilities +
18 LNG import/export facilities + 6 LNG fuel facilities respondents in
year 3.
Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year pursuant to
this proposed rule would vary by requirement. The proposed rule does
not change the frequency of responses for existing requirements.
However, the proposed rule introduces a new ORA requirement, which is a
one-time requirement for the lifetime of the LNG fuel facility.
Burden of Response: The burden per response for each regulatory
requirement varies. Because the Coast Guard possesses better data now
than it did the last time collection 1625-0049 was renewed, the
proposed rule would adjust the currently approved burden to complete a
WSA from 704 hours to 500 hours and would create a new burden of 289
hours to complete an ORA. The proposed rule would also eliminate the 10
hours of burden required to prepare an alternative request.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The first year burden to
respondents of this proposed rule is 6,720 hours, which is a 3,015 hour
reduction in burden from the current corresponding ICR approved under
OMB Control Number 1625-0049 total of 9,734 hours. This reduction in
burden is the result of both program changes of 221 hours and
adjustment changes of 2,794 hours. The program changes correspond to
the proposed removal of a WSA and an alternative request, which
requires 510 hours (500 hours for a WSA and 10 hours for an alternative
request) to complete, in lieu of an ORA, which requires 289 hours. The
adjustment change or a reduction of 2,794 hours includes the following:
(1) A 4-hour increase in burden due to rounding errors; (2) a 919-hour
increase in burden due to adjustment in the
[[Page 62674]]
number of existing LNG facilities from 13 to 15 and the number of new
LNG facilities that need to complete a WSA under the existing
regulation from 1 per year to 3 per year (1 new LNG fuel facility per
year and 2 new LNG import/export facilities per year); (3) a 3,105-hour
reduction in burden due to adjustment in the number of existing LHG
facilities from 143 per year to 106 per year, and the corresponding
adjustment in new facilities from 5 per year to 3 per year; and (4) a
612-hour reduction in burden due to adjustments to the number of hours
required to complete a WSA from 704 per year to 500 per year (the
difference is a result of going from 704 hours to complete a WSA for 3
facilities a year, or 2,112 hours, to 500 hours to complete a WSA for
the same 3 facilities, or 1,500 hours, for a net reduction of 612 hours
annually).
For a new LNG import/export facility, the proposed rule would
require that it provide information to the Coast Guard at the time the
WSA is submitted on the nation of registry for, and the nationality or
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting
natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that
facility. The Coast Guard does not expect specific details regarding
vessels and their crew would be known at the time the LOI and WSA are
submitted to the Coast Guard several years before the facility begins
operations. The Paperwork Reduction Act would not apply to this
requirement as the Coast Guard anticipates only two new LNG import/
export facilities per year would be subject to this requirement.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Paperwork Reduction Act applies to collections of
information using identical questions posed to, or reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on, ten or more persons per year.
See 5 CFR 1320.3(c), and Office of Management and Budget Memorandum
for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent
Regulatory Agencies, dated April 7, 2010, at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed revised collection of
information to help us determine, among other things--
How useful the information is;
Whether the information can help us perform our functions
better;
How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of
the information;
Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
How valid our methods are for determining the burden of
collection; and
How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them by the date listed in the DATES section of this preamble to both
the OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
The proposed rule, with respect to the LOI, WSA, and ORA submission
requirements and COTP approval (Sec. Sec. 127.007, 127.008, 127.009,
127.015, and 127.017), does not conflict with State interests. They are
procedural requirements for the Coast Guard's own safety and security
risk analysis, approval, and appeal process of a new, modified, or
reactivated facility and its attendant LNG transfer operations. As it
relates to other requirements imposed by individual States, or their
political subdivisions, the submission and approval process for the
construction of a new structure would be unaffected by this rule.
Moreover, with respect to LNG transfer operations that may be
included in the LOI, WSA, and ORA submissions, pursuant to 46 U.S.C.
70011(b)(1), Congress has expressly authorized the establishment of
``procedures, measures and standards for the handling, loading,
unloading, storage, stowage and movement on a structure of explosives
or other dangerous articles and substances, including oil or hazardous
material.'' The Coast Guard affirmatively preempts any State rules
related to these procedures, measures, and standards (See United States
v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109-110 (2000)). Therefore, because the States
may not regulate within these categories, this rule is consistent with
the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the updates of technical standards referenced in 33 CFR
part 127, it is Congress's express intent that, with respect to
waterfront structures, States retain the power to regulate to higher
standards than those promulgated by the Coast Guard. As stated in 46
U.S.C. 70011(c), ``State Law.--Nothing in this section, with respect to
structures, prohibits a State or political subdivision thereof from
prescribing higher safety equipment or safety standards than those that
may be prescribed by regulations under this section.'' Thus, Congress
has made clear that the federal standards promulgated under this
section establish the uniform minimum standards of the United States,
but individual States are entitled to impose higher safety equipment
requirements or higher safety standards for structures within their
jurisdiction.
The Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local
governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally,
for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive
Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and
local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this
proposed rule would have implications for federalism under Executive
Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
F. Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights).
[[Page 62675]]
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule incorporates by reference the following new
voluntary consensus standards, which are listed and summarized below:
ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines for Systems and
Installations for Supply of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition, 15
January 2015. This standard gives guidance on the minimum requirements
for the design and operation of the LNG bunkering (fueling) facility,
including the interface between the LNG supply facilities and receiving
ships.
ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries--Installation and Equipment for Liquefied Natural Gas--Ship-
to-Shore Interface and Port Operations, First Edition, 15 December
2010. This standard specifies the requirements for ship, terminal, and
port service providers to ensure the safe transit of an LNG carrier
through the port area and the safe and efficient transfer of its cargo.
This proposed rule also incorporates the following new technical
standard other than a voluntary consensus standard.
DNV GL, Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-G105, Development
and Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkering Facilities, October
2015 Edition. This standard provides guidance to the industry on the
developmental, organizational, technical, functional, and operational
issues of LNG bunkering (fueling) facilities in order to ensure global
compatibility and secure a high level of safety, integrity, and
reliability.
This technical standard was selected because it aligns with ISO/TS
18683:2015(E). Both DNVGL-RP-G105 and ISO/TS 18683:2015(E) provide
guidance to industry on conducting risk assessments that are focused on
providing LNG as a marine fuel (bunkering operations).
This proposed rule incorporates by reference the following updated
voluntary consensus standards, which are listed and summarized below:
API Recommended Practice 2003, Protection Against
Ignitions Arising Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth
Edition, September 2015. This standard presents the current state of
knowledge and technology in the fields of static electricity and stray
currents applicable to the prevention of hydrocarbon ignition in the
petroleum industry, which is based on both scientific research and
practical experience.
ASME B16.5-2017, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS
\1/2\ through NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard, November 20, 2017. This
standard covers pressure-temperature ratings, materials, dimensions,
tolerances, marking, testing, and methods of designating openings for
pipe flanges and flanged fittings.
ASME B31.3-2018, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure
Piping, B31, August 30, 2019. This standard contains requirements for
piping typically found in petroleum refineries; chemical,
pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic plants;
and related processing plants and terminals. It covers materials and
components, design, fabrication, assembly, erection, examination,
inspection, and testing of piping.
ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Specification
for International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications,
approved May 1, 2015. This standard covers the specifications for the
design and manufacture of international shore connections to be used
with marine firefighting systems during an emergency when a stricken
ship has a system failure.
IEC 60079-29-1, Edition 2.0, Explosive Atmospheres--Part
29-1: Gas Detectors--Performance Requirements of Detectors for
Flammable Gases, July 2016. This standard specifies general
requirements for construction, testing, and performance, and describes
the test methods that apply to portable, transportable, and fixed
apparatus for the detection and measurement of flammable gas or vapor
concentrations with air.
NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018
Edition, effective April 21, 2017. This standard applies to the
selection, installation, inspection, maintenance, recharging, and
testing of portable extinguishing equipment and Class D extinguishing
agents.
NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018
Edition, effective September 6, 2017. This standard applies to the
storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids,
including waste liquids.
NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding,
Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2019.
This standard covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life, and
loss of property from fire or explosion as a result of hot work.
NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and
Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective
November 25, 2018. This standard provides minimum fire protection,
safety, and related requirements for the location, design,
construction, security, operation, and maintenance of LNG plants.
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2017 Edition, effective
August 24, 2016. The provisions of this standard apply to the design,
modification, construction,
[[Page 62676]]
inspection, maintenance, and testing of electrical systems,
installations, and equipment.
NFPA 251, Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of
Building Construction and Materials, 2006 Edition, effective August 18,
2005. This standard provides methods of fire tests applicable to
assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural
materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls, partitions,
columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies
for floors and roofs. This standard also applies to other assemblies
and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a
finished building.
The proposed section that references these standards and the
locations where these standards are available is listed in Sec.
127.003. If you disagree with our analysis of these standards or are
aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply but are not
listed, please send a comment explaining your disagreement or
identifying additional standards to the docket using one of the methods
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under
paragraphs A3 and L54 in Appendix A, of Table 1 of DHS Directive
Instruction Manual 023-01, Rev. 1.\30\ Paragraph A3 pertains to
promulgation of rules and other guidance documents that interpret or
amend existing regulations without changing its environmental effect.
Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations that are editorial or procedural.
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127
Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 127 as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for part 127 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70011 and 70034; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Pub. L. 109-
241, sec. 304(c)(2).
0
2. Amend Sec. 127.001 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``existing'';
0
b. Revise paragraph (c); and
0
c. Add paragraph (f).
The revision and addition reads as follows:
Sec. 127.001 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d), and 127.019(b) of subpart A
of this part apply to the marine transfer area for LNG of each inactive
facility.
* * * * *
(f) Waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed,
expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after November 4, 2020
are required to comply with the applicable standards referenced in
Sec. 127.003. All other facilities, unless expanded or modified in
accordance with this part, are required to meet previously applicable
standards but may request to apply a later edition of the standards in
accordance with Sec. 127.017.
0
3. Revise Sec. 127.003 to read as follows:
Sec. 127.003 Incorporation by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a document in
the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public.
All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast
Guard, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), 2703
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509,
202-372-1410, and is available from the sources listed below. It is
also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. See Sec. 127.017 for
alternative compliance methods.
(a) API, 200 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC
20001-5571, 202-682-8000, https://www.api.org.
(1) API Recommended Practice 2003, Protection Against Ignitions
Arising Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth Edition,
September 2015, (``API RP 2003''), IBR approved for Sec. 127.1101(h).
(2) [Reserved]
(b) ASME, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 800-843-2763,
https://www.asme.org.
(1) ASME B16.5-2017, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS \1/2\
Through NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard, November 20, 2017, IBR approved
for Sec. 127.1102(a).
(2) ASME B31.3-2018, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping,
B31, August 30, 2019, IBR approved for Sec. 127.1101(a).
(c) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500, https://www.astm.org.
(1) ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Specification for
International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, approved
May 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 127.611 and 127.1511.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) DNV GL, Veritasveien 1, 1363 Hovik, Norway, +47 6757 9900,
https://www.dnvgl.com.
(1) DNV GL, Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-G105, Development and
Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkering Facilities, October 2015
Edition, IBR approved for Sec. 127.008(d).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) IEC International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de
Varembe, 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH 1211, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02
11, https://www.iec.ch.
(1) IEC 60079-29-1, Edition 2.0, Explosive Atmospheres--Part 29-1:
Gas Detectors--Performance Requirements of Detectors for Flammable
Gases, July 2016, IBR approved for Sec. 127.1203(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(f) ISO-International Organization for Standardization, BIBC II,
Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41
22 749 01 11, https://www.iso.org.
(1) ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines for Systems and Installations
for Supply of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition,
[[Page 62677]]
15 January 2015, (``ISO 18683''), IBR approved for Sec. 127.008(d).
(2) ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries--
Installation and Equipment for Liquefied Natural Gas--Ship-to-Shore
Interface and Port Operations, First Edition, 15 December 2010, (``ISO
28460''), IBR approved for Sec. 127.008(e).
(g) NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 800-344-3555,
https://www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018
Edition, effective April 21, 2017, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
127.603(a) and 127.1503.
(2) NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 Edition,
effective September 6, 2017, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 127.313(b) and
127.1313(b).
(3) NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting,
and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2019, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 127.405(b) and 127.1405(b).
(4) NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective November 25, 2018,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 127.008(d), 127.101 introductory text, and
(a) through (g), 127.201(b) and (c), 127.405(a) and (b), and
127.603(a).
(5) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2017 Edition, effective
August 24, 2016, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 127.107(a) and (c),
127.201(c), and 127.1107.
(6) NFPA 251, Standard Methods for Tests of Fire Resistance of
Building Construction and Materials, 2006 Edition, effective August 18,
2005, IBR approved for Sec. 127.005.
0
3. In Sec. 127.005, revise the definitions of ``Facility'' and ``Fire
endurance rating'' and add a definition for ``LNG fuel facility'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.005 Definitions.
* * * * *
Facility means either a waterfront facility handling LHG or a
waterfront facility handling LNG, and includes LNG fuel facilities.
Fire endurance rating means the duration for which an assembly or
structural unit will contain a fire or retain structural integrity when
exposed to the temperatures specified in the standard time-temperature
curve in NFPA 251 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
* * * * *
LNG fuel facility means a waterfront facility that handles LNG for
the sole purpose of providing LNG from shore-based structures to
vessels for use as a marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or
receive LNG from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 127.007 as follows:
0
a. Revise the section heading, and paragraphs (a), (b), and (e);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (h) as paragraph (i);
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (g) as paragraph (h);
0
d. Add paragraphs (g) and (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 127.007 Letter of intent and waterway suitability assessment for
waterfront facilities handling LNG or LHG.
(a) An owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling
LNG or LHG, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand
marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where
the construction or expansion would result in an increase in the size
and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway
associated with a facility, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the
Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will
be located. The LOI must meet the requirements in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) An owner or operator intending to reactivate an inactive
facility must submit an LOI that meets paragraph (c) of this section to
the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
* * * * *
(e) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG or LHG
facility, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand
marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where
the construction or expansion would result in an increase in the size
and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway
associated with a facility, must file or update as appropriate a
waterway suitability assessment (WSA) with the COTP of the zone in
which the facility is or will be located. The WSA must consist of a
Preliminary WSA and a Follow-on WSA. A COTP may request additional
information during review of the Preliminary WSA or Follow-on WSA.
* * * * *
(g) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG facility must
submit the preliminary WSA no later than the date that the owner or
operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 18 CFR parts 153 or
157. The LOI must include the nation of registry for, and the
nationality or citizenship of the officers and crew serving on board,
vessels transporting LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be
servicing the LNG facility.
* * * * *
(j) An owner or operator intending to construct a new LNG fuel
facility or modify any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG
fuel facility may comply with Sec. 127.008 in lieu of meeting the
requirements in this section.
0
5. Add Sec. 127.008 to read as follows:
Sec. 127.008 Letter of intent and operational risk assessment for LNG
fuel facilities.
(a) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG fuel
facility, modify construction of any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate
an inactive LNG fuel facility electing to complete an operational risk
assessment in lieu of a WSA as outlined in Sec. 127.007, must submit a
Letter of Intent (LOI) and an operational risk assessment to the
Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the LNG fuel facility
is or will be located at least 1 year prior to the start of LNG
transfer operations.
(b) Each LOI must contain the information in Sec. 127.007(c)(1)
through (5).
(c) The owner or operator who submits an LOI under paragraph (a) of
this section must notify the COTP in writing within 15 days of any of
the following:
(1) There is any change in the information submitted under
paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) No LNG fuel transfer operations are scheduled within the next
12 months.
(d) The operational risk assessment required by paragraph (a) must:
(1) Be carried out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO
18683:2015(E) and Appendix D of DNVGL-RP-G105; or Chapter 19 of NFPA
59A (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003); or other
industry developed risk assessment method acceptable to the Office of
Operating and Environmental Standards, Commandant (CG-OES); and
(2) Consider possible factors affecting the ship/shore interface
and port operations described in Section 6 of ISO 28460:2010(E)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
0
6. Amend Sec. 127.009 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 127.009 Letter of recommendation.
(a) After the COTP receives the information and analyses required
by Sec. 127.007 or Sec. 127.008, the COTP issues a Letter of
Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG
[[Page 62678]]
or LHG marine traffic or the operational safety and security of the LNG
fuel facility to the Federal, State, or local government agencies
having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation, and, at
the same time, sends a copy to the owner or operator, based on the--
(1) Information submitted under Sec. Sec. 127.007 or 127.008;
* * * * *
Sec. 127.011 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 127.011 by removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in
its place, the word ``must''.
0
8. In Sec. 127.015, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 127.015 Appeals.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Appeal that ruling in writing to the Assistant Commandant for
Prevention Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, (CG-5P), 2703 Martin Luther King
Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; and
* * * * *
(d) The Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy issues a ruling
after reviewing the appeal submitted under paragraph (c) of this
section, which is final agency action.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 127.017, revise the introductory text of paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.017 Alternatives.
(a) The COTP may allow alternative procedures, methods, or
equipment standards, including alternatives to standards listed in
Sec. 127.003, to be used by an operator instead of any requirements in
this part if--
* * * * *
Sec. 127.019 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 127.019 as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it
appears, and add, in its place, the word ``must''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``existing''.
0
11. Revise Sec. 127.101 to read as follows:
Sec. 127.101 Design and construction: General.
The marine transfer area for LNG must meet the following criteria
in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003):
(a) Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.7;
(b) Chapter 6, Section 6.7;
(c) Chapter 10;
(d) Chapter 11, except Sections 11.9, and 11.10;
(e) Chapter 12;
(f) Chapter 15, except Sections 15.4 and 15.6; and
(g) Annex B.
0
12. Amend Sec. 127.107 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 127.107 Electrical power systems.
(a) The electrical power system must have a power source and a
separate emergency power source, so that failure of one source does not
affect the capability of the other source. The system must meet NFPA 70
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
* * * * *
(c) If an auxiliary generator is used as an emergency power source,
it must meet Section 700.12 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003).
0
13. In Sec. 127.201, revise paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 127.201 Sensing and alarm systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Meet section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 127.003).
(c) * * *
(1) Be in each enclosed or covered Class I, Division 1, hazardous
location defined in section 500.5(B)(1) of NFPA 70 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 127.003) and each area in which flammable or
combustible material is stored; and
(2) Meet section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 127.003).
Sec. 127.301 [Amended]
0
14. In Sec. 127.301(b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.309 [Amended]
0
15. In Sec. 127.309, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.311 [Amended]
0
16. In Sec. 127.311(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.313 [Amended]
0
17. Amend Sec. 127.313 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove ``Chapter 4 of'' and add ``(incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 127.003)'' after ``NFPA 30''.
Sec. 127.315 [Amended]
0
18. In Sec. 127.315, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.317 [Amended]
0
19. In Sec. 127.317, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.319 [Amended]
0
20. In Sec. 127.319, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.321 [Amended]
0
21. In Sec. 127.321, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and
add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.401 [Amended]
0
22. In Sec. 127.401, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.403 [Amended]
0
23. In Sec. 127.403, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
0
24. In Sec. 127.405, revise the introductory text and paragraphs
(a)(1) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 127.405 Repairs.
The operator must ensure that--
(a) * * *
(1) The equipment continues to meet the applicable requirements in
this subpart and in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003); and
* * * * *
(b) Welding is done in accordance with NFPA 51B and Section 10.4.3
of NFPA 59A (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 127.003).
Sec. 127.407 [Amended]
0
25. In Sec. 127.407 (a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.409 [Amended]
0
26. In Sec. 127.409(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
0
27. In Sec. 127.603, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 127.603 Portable fire extinguishers.
* * * * *
(a) Portable fire extinguishers that meet section 16.6.1 of NFPA
59A and Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003); and
* * * * *
Sec. 127.611 [Amended]
0
28. In Sec. 127.611, remove ``ASTM F 1121'' and add, in its place, the
text ``ASTM F 1121-87''.
Sec. 127.613 [Amended]
0
29. In Sec. 127.613, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
[[Page 62679]]
Sec. 127.615 [Amended]
0
30. In Sec. 127.615, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.617 [Amended]
0
31. In Sec. 127.617, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.701 [Amended]
0
32. Remove the undesignated center heading ``Security'' that precedes
Sec. 127.701.
Sec. 127.701 [Removed]
0
33. Remove Sec. 127.701.
Sec. 127.703 [Removed]
0
34. Remove Sec. 127.703.
Sec. 127.705 [Removed]
0
35. Remove Sec. 127.705.
Sec. 127.707 [Removed]
0
36. Remove Sec. 127.707.
Sec. 127.709 [Removed]
0
37. Remove Sec. 127.709.
Sec. 127.711 [Removed]
0
38. Remove Sec. 127.711.
Sec. 127.1101 [Amended]
0
39. Amend Sec. 127.1101 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove ``ASME B31.3'' and add, in its place, the
text ``ASME B31.3-2018 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (h), add ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003)'' after ``API RP 2003''.
Sec. 127.1102 [Amended]
0
40. In Sec. 127.1102(a)(4)(ii), remove ``ANSI B16.5'' and add, in its
place, ``ASME B16.5-2017 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1103 [Amended]
0
41. In Sec. 127.1103, remove the word ``existing'' wherever it
appears.
Sec. 127.1105 [Amended]
0
42. In Sec. 127.1105, remove the word ``existing.''
Sec. 127.1107 [Amended]
0
43. In Sec. 127.1107, add ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003)'' after ``NFPA 70''.
Sec. 127.1203 [Amended]
0
44. In Sec. 127.1203(a), remove ``ANSI S12.13, Part I'' and add, in
its place, ``IEC 60079-29-1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003)''.
Sec. 127.1207 [Amended]
0
45. In Sec. 127.1207(c), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1301 [Amended]
0
46. In Sec. 127.1301(b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1302 [Amended]
0
47. In Sec. 127.1302, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1309 [Amended]
0
48. In Sec. 127.1309, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1311 [Amended]
0
49. In Sec. 127.1311, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1313 [Amended]
0
50. Amend Sec. 127.1313 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove ``Chapter 4 of'' and add ``(incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 127.003)'' after ``NFPA 30''.
Sec. 127.1315 [Amended]
0
51. In Sec. 127.1315 remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1317 [Amended]
0
52. In Sec. 127.1317, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1319 [Amended]
0
53. In Sec. 127.1319, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1321 [Amended]
0
54. In Sec. 127.1321, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1325 [Amended]
0
55. In Sec. 127.1325, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1401 [Amended]
0
56. Remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1403 [Amended]
0
57. In Sec. 127.1403, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1405 [Amended]
0
58. Amend Sec. 127.1405 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory paragraph, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in
its place, the word ``must'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the word ``and''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b), add ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003)'' after the text ``NFPA 51B''.
Sec. 127.1407 [Amended]
0
59. In Sec. 127.1407, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1409 [Amended]
0
60. In Sec. 127.1409, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears,
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1501 [Amended]
0
61. In Sec. 127.1501 (a), remove the word ``existing.''
Sec. 127.1503 [Amended]
0
62. In Sec. 127.1503, add ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
127.003)'' after ``NFPA 10''.
Sec. 127.1511 [Amended]
0
63. In Sec. 127.1511, remove ``ASTM F 1121'' and add, in its place,
``ASTM F 1121-87''.
Sec. 127.1601 [Amended]
0
64. In Sec. 127.1601, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1603 [Amended]
0
65. In Sec. 127.1603, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Sec. 127.1605 [Amended]
0
66. In Sec. 127.1605, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place,
the word ``must''.
Dated: September 18, 2020.
R. V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-21071 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P