[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75972-75996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25192]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 127, 154, and 156
[Docket No. USCG-2020-0315]
RIN 1625-AC61
Electronic Submission of Facility Operations and Emergency
Manuals
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this proposed rule is to enable electronic
submission of Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and electronic
communication between the operators of regulated facilities and the
Coast Guard, reducing the time and cost associated with mailing and
processing printed manuals. Current regulations stipulate that these
facilities send the Coast Guard two copies of their Operations Manual,
their Emergency Manual, if applicable, and any amendments to the
manuals. This proposed rule would allow facility operators to submit
one electronic or printed copy of the manuals and amendments to the
manuals. This proposed rule would also require these facilities to
maintain either an electronic or a printed copy of each required manual
in the marine transfer area of the facility during transfer operations.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0315 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 comments on the collection of
information discussed in section VI.D of this preamble both 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 (OMB) using their website. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Comments sent to OMB
on collection of information must reach OMB on or before the comment
due date listed on their website.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Lieutenant Omar La Torre Reyes, Coast Guard; telephone
202-372-1132, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Part 127--Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural
Gas and Liquefied Hazardous Gas
B. Part 154--Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials
in Bulk
C. Part 156--Oil and Hazardous Material Transfer Operations
D. Technical Revisions Within Part 127 and Part 154
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. 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, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this proposed rule,
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 information about
privacy and submissions in response to this document, see the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) eRulemaking System of Records
notice (Volume 85 of the Federal Register (FR) at 14226, March 11,
2020).
We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will consider doing
so if we determine from public comments that a meeting would be
helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce
the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
[[Page 75973]]
II. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
CG-FAC U.S. Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Compliance
IT Information technology
LHG Liquefied Hazardous Gas
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MTR Facilities that transfer oil or hazardous material in bulk
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIC Person in charge of transfer
SBA Small Business Administration
Sec. Section
SME Subject matter expert
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Basis and Purpose
Section 70011 of Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish procedures
and measures for handling of dangerous substances, including oil and
hazardous material, to prevent damage to any structure on or in the
navigable waters of the United States. Additionally, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended and codified in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5), authorizes the President to establish procedures to prevent
discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels, onshore
facilities, and offshore facilities. The FWPCA functions in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5) have been delegated from the President to the Secretary of
DHS by Executive Order 12777 Sec. 2(d)(2), as amended by Executive
Order 13286. The authorities in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5) and 46 U.S.C.
70011 (formerly 33 U.S.C. 1225) have been delegated to the Coast Guard
under section II, paragraphs 70 and 73, of DHS Delegation No. 0170.1.
The Coast Guard requires all operators of facilities that transfer
oil and hazardous materials in bulk, to or from certain vessels, to
develop and maintain an Operations Manual in order to help prevent
discharges of oil and hazardous substances into the marine environment.
Operators of facilities that transfer liquefied natural gas (LNG), or
liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) in bulk, to or from a vessel, must also
develop and maintain an Operations Manual and an Emergency Manual.
Copies of each manual must be submitted to the Coast Guard for review.
IV. Background
Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 127 requires
facilities that transfer LNG and LHG in bulk, to or from a vessel, to
maintain both an Operations Manual and an Emergency Manual. Similarly,
part 154 requires facilities that transfer oil or hazardous materials
in bulk, to or from a vessel with a capacity of 39.75 cubic meters (250
barrels) or more, to maintain an Operations Manual.
An Operations Manual for either LNG and LHG or oil and hazardous
materials transfer facilities describes how the facility meets
applicable operating rules and equipment requirements, and describes
the responsibilities of personnel in charge of conducting transfer
operations. An Emergency Manual for LNG and LHG facilities describes
emergency shutdown procedures, fire equipment and systems, contact
information, emergency shelter information, first aid procedures,
emergency procedures for mooring and unmooring a vessel, and how the
facility would respond to releases of cargo.
According to Sec. Sec. 127.019 and 154.300, these manuals must be
submitted to the Captain of the Port (COTP) for examination before a
facility may operate. Under both provisions, the facility operator must
submit two copies of each required manual to the COTP for examination.
The COTP evaluates whether the operations and safety procedures
outlined in the manuals meet the requirements of 33 CFR part 127 (for
LNG and LHG) or part 154 (for oil and hazardous material).
If these manuals meet the minimum requirements of the regulations,
then they are considered ``adequate.'' The COTP accepts the manuals,
keeps one copy and returns the other, after marking it ``examined.''
The facility operator keeps the examined copy and is required to
conduct all operations in accordance with its operations or emergency
procedures, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 127.309, 127.1309, or
156.102(t)(2).
If the manuals fail to meet the minimum requirements of the
regulations, then they are considered ``inadequate.'' The COTP rejects
the manuals, and returns the relevant section, or the entire manual, if
necessary, with an explanation of why the procedures in it failed to
meet the relevant regulatory requirements. The operator makes the
required corrections and then sends two corrected copies back to the
COTP for re-examination.
Although the regulations do not explicitly state that the copies
must be printed, the requirement for two copies and the return of a
marked copy have suggested the use of printed documents. The two-copy
requirement was issued in 1988 for LNG and LHG facilities (53 FR 3370,
Feb. 5, 1988) and in 1996 for oil and hazardous materials facilities
(61 FR 41458, Aug. 8, 1996), when electronic mail and electronic
storage were not common practice. In practice, operators submit the
manuals in printed form.
This proposed rule would remove the two-copy requirement and allow
facility operators to submit one printed or electronic copy of each
required manual to the COTP for examination. It would also allow
facilities to maintain either a printed or an electronic copy of the
most recently examined manual(s) in the marine transfer area of the
facility.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to change the
following sections in title 33 of the CFR: 127.019, 127.309, 127.1309,
154.300, 154.320, 154.325, and 156.120. A section-by-section
explanation of the proposed changes follows. Section V.A discusses the
proposed changes to 33 CFR part 127 that would apply to facilities that
transfer LNG and LHG, in bulk, to or from a vessel. Section V.B
contains the proposed changes to 33 CFR part 154 that would apply to
facilities that transfer oil and hazardous materials, in bulk, to or
from a vessel. Section V.C describes the change in 33 CFR part 156
which would also allow the oil and hazardous material transfer
facilities to maintain either an electronic or printed copy of the
Facility Operations Manual. Finally, in Section V.D, this proposed rule
discusses technical revisions to replace the word ``shall'' with the
plain language terms ``must'' and ``will.''
A. Part 127-Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and
Liquefied Hazardous Gas
Section 127.019 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Procedures
for examination.
This section currently requires owners and operators of facilities
that transfer LNG and LHG, in bulk, to or from a vessel to submit two
copies of an Operations Manual and an Emergency Manual to the COTP for
examination. The revised Sec. 127.019 would allow the owners and
operators to submit one copy of each manual in printed or electronic
format to the COTP for examination.
Additionally, to codify current practices, we propose that manuals
submitted after the effective date of the final rule include a date,
revision date, or other identifying information generated by the
facility. All manuals currently have some unique identifying
information in them. This provision
[[Page 75974]]
would allow them to continue to use their own identifying information
or to use a revision date. The date, revision date, or other
identifying information would allow the facility operator and the Coast
Guard to determine quickly if the most recent version of the manual is
being used. Other identifying information generated by the facility may
include document control numbers under an existing internal management
system, which make it easier to verify that the most recent version of
the manual is being used by the facility.
In this section, this proposed rulemaking would modify the manner
in which the COTP notifies the facility operator that the Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual have been examined. Currently, if the
manual meets the requirements of this part, the COTP physically marks
the manual ``Examined by the Coast Guard'' and returns one copy by mail
to the facility operator. In conjunction with requiring only one copy
and allowing electronic submission of the manual, we propose allowing
the COTP to respond to the facilities electronically to reduce
paperwork-processing costs. Under this proposed rule, the COTP would
provide notice to the facility that the manual has been examined, and
would no longer return a marked copy of the manual to the facility.
The COTP would determine the best method to return the notice to
the facility operator by considering the facility's available contact
information and the method in which the manuals were submitted. We
expect the COTP's notice to take the form of a printed or
electronically submitted letter to the facility operator initially, but
could eventually include an electronic certification with the
information. The COTP's notice would also include the manual's date,
revision date, or other identifying information generated by the
facility so that the Coast Guard and facility operators can verify
which manual is the most recently examined.
In proposed Sec. 127.019(e), we would also amend the way the COTP
notifies a facility when the manual does not meet the requirements of
part 127. Currently, the COTP is required to return a printed copy of
the manual with an explanation of why it does not meet the requirements
of part 127. This proposed rule would allow the COTP to notify a
facility with an explanation of why it does not meet the requirements
of this part, without returning a printed copy of the manual. This
proposed change would enable electronic communication between the Coast
Guard and a facility while reducing associated printing and mailing
costs for the Coast Guard. The COTP would retain the discretion to send
the letters and manuals via mail to the facility when appropriate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We use the term ``mail'' throughout this NPRM to refer to
the delivery method used by the Captain of the Port or the facility
to send and receive printed copies of letters and manuals. These
methods include, but are not limited to, the United States Postal
Service, FedEx, UPS, and courier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, within Sec. 127.019, this proposed rule would remove the
word ``existing'' where it appears in the context of ``existing
facility'' in paragraphs (a) and (b). ``Existing'', as applied to a
waterfront facility, is defined in Sec. 127.005 ``Definitions'', but
the definition is limited to facilities that were constructed before
June 2, 1988 for LNG facilities and before January 30, 1996 for LHG
facilities. The specific dates used within the definition of
``existing'' were never intended to apply to the use of ``existing'' in
this section. To avoid confusion, we propose removing ``existing'' from
this section. The requirements in paragraph (a) would continue to apply
to all active facilities, and the requirements of paragraph (b) would
continue to apply to all new or inactive facilities.
Section 127.309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.
Paragraph (a) of this section currently requires the operator of an
LNG facility to ensure the facility's Operations Manual and Emergency
Manual have both been examined by the Coast Guard before LNG transfer
operations are conducted. The proposed revisions to Sec. 127.309(a)
would require the operator to ensure that the person in charge of
transfer (PIC) has printed or electronic copies of the most recently
examined Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals readily available in
the marine transfer area.
The proposed changes to this paragraph enable the PIC to maintain
electronic or printed copies in the marine transfer area. The proposed
Operations Manual submission requirements in Sec. 127.019 would
contain the procedures and requirements for obtaining examination by
the Coast Guard, including the requirement for manuals submitted after
the effective date of a final rule to have a date, revision date, or
other identifying information generated by the facility.
In Sec. 127.309, the phrase ``readily available in the marine
transfer area'' means that a printed or electronic copy of the manual
is available for viewing within the operating station of the PIC. The
PIC would not be expected to keep the manual in their possession while
conducting routine rounds during a transfer operation.
At this time, facilities typically have a printed copy of the
examined Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals in the marine
transfer area. While PICs must know the contents of the manuals under
Sec. 127.301(a)(4), the Coast Guard recognizes that it is difficult
for a PIC to instantly recall every step of every procedure outlined in
these manuals. Because both Sec. 127.309(b) and (c) require each
transfer and emergency operation to be conducted in accordance with the
examined Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals, respectively, it is
currently common practice for PICs to have a copy of the Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual in the marine transfer area during transfer
operations to reference when needed. Therefore, adding a requirement
that a printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals must be readily available to
the PIC in the marine transfer area would not add a significant burden
to facility operators.
Section 127.1309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.
Similarly, Sec. 127.1309(a) currently requires the operator of an
LHG waterfront facility to ensure that the facility has an examined
copy of the Operations Manual and Emergency Manual prior to any
transfer. The proposed changes to Sec. 127.1309(a) would require,
instead, that the facility operators ensure the facility's PIC has a
printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual readily available in the marine transfer
area. This proposed change to Sec. 127.1309(a) would help ensure that
PICs have access to the manuals, if needed, because the facility would
no longer have a COTP-marked printed copy in the facility. For the
purpose of this section, the phrase ``readily available in the marine
transfer area'' means a printed or electronic copy of the manual is
available for viewing within the operating station of the PIC, but the
PIC would not be expected to keep the manual in their possession.
Under Sec. 127.1302(a)(5), LHG facilities, like LNG facilities,
typically maintain a copy of the examined Operations Manual and
Emergency Manual in the marine transfer area because the PIC is
required to know the contents of the manuals. Additionally, under Sec.
127.1309(b) and (c), each transfer operation must be conducted in
accordance with the examined Operations Manual. In the event of an
emergency, all response efforts must be executed in accordance with the
[[Page 75975]]
examined Emergency Manual. Because of these knowledge and procedural
requirements, it is currently common practice for PICs to have a copy
of the Operations Manual and Emergency Manual in the marine transfer
area during transfer operations to reference in uncommon situations
outlined in the manuals. Therefore, adding the requirement explicitly
stating that a printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual must be readily available to the
PIC in the marine transfer area should not add a significant burden to
facility operators.
B. Part 154--Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk
Section 154.300 Operations Manual; General. This section currently
requires operators of facilities that transfer oil or hazardous
materials in bulk to or from a vessel with a capacity of 39.75 cubic
meters (250 barrels) or more to submit two copies of their Operations
Manual to the COTP.
We propose to add text to paragraph (a) to clarify that the
facility operator must submit the manuals to the COTP of the zone in
which the facility operates. The current text in paragraph (a) requires
facilities to submit their Operations Manual, but does not explicitly
state to whom. The proposed clarification would align the text with
current requirements and practice.
The revised Sec. 154.300 would allow facility operators to submit
one printed or electronic copy of the manual to the COTP with a date, a
revision date, or other identifying information generated by the
facility. This is to allow the facility and the COTP to determine
quickly if the most recent version of the manual is being used during
inspections of the facility. Other identifying information generated by
the facility may include document control numbers under an internal
management system, which would make it easier to verify that the most
recent version of the manual is being used by the facility. As the
inclusion of such information is current practice, we are only
codifying current practice.
We also propose to modify the manner in which the COTP notifies the
facility that the Operations Manual has been examined. Currently, after
examination and determination that the manual meets the requirements of
this part, the COTP marks the manual ``Examined by the Coast Guard''
and returns one copy to the facility operator. Under this proposed
rule, the COTP would notify the facility that the manual has been
examined and would no longer return a copy of the manual to the
facility. We expect this notice to take the form of a printed or
emailed letter, initially, with the revision date or other identifying
information generated by the facility on the letter, but could
eventually include an electronic certification with the information.
Proposed revisions to paragraph (f) of Sec. 154.300 would allow
either a printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined
Operations Manual to be readily available for each facility's PIC while
conducting a transfer operation. This would effectively allow the
facility to store the manual in print or electronic format.
Additionally, this proposed rule would allow the facility to have
printed or electronic copies of the manual in any translations required
under Sec. 154.300(a)(3).
In Sec. 154.300(d), the proposed rule would add ``products
transferred'' to the list of items the COTP considers when determining
whether the manual meets the requirements of part 154 and part 156.
Currently, paragraph (d) indicates that the COTP will consider the
size, complexity, and capability of the facility. Information about the
products transferred, meaning the type of oil and hazardous material,
is already required to be included in the Operation Manuals under Sec.
154.310(a)(5), and knowledge of the products being transferred is
important to reviewing the adequacy of the Operations Manual. The
facility develops their capabilities based in part on the
characteristics of the oil or hazardous material they want to transfer.
Adding ``products transferred'' to the list of considerations will
increase transparency regarding the manual examination process.
Section 154.320 Operations Manual: Amendment.
This section addresses amendments to Operations Manuals. Paragraph
(a) of this section states that the COTP may require the facility
operator to amend their Operations Manual if the manual does not meet
the requirements of this part. This NPRM proposes to change the
statement from ``requirements of this part'' to ``requirements of this
subchapter'' because there are other regulations in the subchapter that
apply to the Operations Manual. The applicable subchapter would be
subchapter O, titled ``Pollution,'' which includes 33 CFR parts 151
through 159.
Section 154.320(a)(1) allows facility operators to submit to the
Coast Guard any information, views, arguments, and proposed amendments
in response to the inadequacies identified by the COTP. In alignment
with other changes proposed by this NPRM, we propose adding language to
this section allowing facility operators to send their information,
views, arguments, and proposed amendments to the COTP in print or
electronically.
In Sec. 154.320(b)(1), this proposed rule would allow facilities
to submit amendments to the manuals either in print or electronically.
Proposed paragraph (e) would describe how amendments can be submitted
and the procedures to follow in the event the entire manual is
submitted for amendments. Currently, amendments are submitted as page
replacements or as an entire manual, at the option of the submitter,
depending on the extent of the changes to the manual. This proposed
rule would allow the choice of page or whole-manual replacement, but
would require the inclusion of the date, revision date, or other
identifying information generated by the facility.
If a facility submits the entire manual with the proposed
amendments, this proposed rule would require that the changes since the
last examined manual be highlighted, or otherwise annotated, by the
facility. It may be easier for a facility to submit the entire manual
with the amendments highlighted or annotated, rather than isolating
individual pages that were amended. Examples of ways facility operators
could highlight or annotate the amendments include use of an electronic
or ink highlighting tool, comment or text boxes noting where the
changes are, or noting the changes in correspondence or a document.
Ultimately, the method that the facility operator uses can be anything
that identifies all the changes, and is not limited to the methods
mentioned in this preamble. The purpose of highlighting or annotating
the amendments is to assist the COTP in understanding what changes are
being made and to reduce the resources required to examine amendments.
After the COTP examines the amendments, the facility must maintain the
Operations Manual with the most recently examined changes, but there
would be no requirement to keep the changes highlighted or annotated
after they are examined.
Currently, Sec. 154.320 paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) state that the
COTP will approve or disapprove amendments to manuals, and provide
reasons if disapproved. We propose to align this text with other
sections in this part providing that the COTP examines the amendments
to manuals for compliance with the subpart, and then notifies the
facility that the amendments have been examined by the Coast Guard. If
the amendments do not meet the requirements for Operations Manuals in
subchapter O, the COTP would notify
[[Page 75976]]
the facility operator of the inadequacies and explain why the
amendments do not meet the requirements of that subchapter.
Section 154.325 Operations Manual: Procedures for examination.
This section currently requires facility operators to submit two
copies of an Operational Manual to the COTP for examination and
outlines the procedures for Coast Guard examination of Operations
Manuals for new facilities and facilities that are removed from
caretaker status. The proposed Sec. 154.325 would allow facility
operators to submit the manual in print or electronic format to the
COTP.
This NPRM proposes to remove paragraph (a) of Sec. 154.325, which
would remove the requirement that the facility operator must submit two
copies of the Operations Manual. In alignment with other proposed
changes in part 154, the facility operator of a new facility would be
able to submit one electronic or printed copy of the Operations Manual
to the COTP.
In re-designated paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the
proposed rule would clarify that the operator of a new facility or
facility removed from caretaker status must submit the manual to the
COTP for examination prior to the first transfer operation, rather than
prior to any transfer operation. This proposed rule would replace the
current text ``any transfer operation'' with ``the first transfer
operation'' to make the regulatory text more precise. This change
clarifies that the facility must submit the Operations Manual prior to
a new facility's first transfer or the first transfer after a facility
is removed from caretaker status.
We would amend the process in Sec. 154.325 so that the COTP would
notify the facility when the manual has been examined. Because we are
proposing to allow electronic submission, the COTP would no longer send
back a marked printed copy of the manual stating it has been examined
by the Coast Guard. The COTP's notice would restate the manual's date,
revision date, or other identifying information provided by the
facility. Where the manual does not meet the requirements of subchapter
O, the COTP would notify the facility with an explanation of why the
manual does not meet the requirements of that subchapter. In proposed
Sec. 154.325(d) (currently paragraph (e)), this proposed rulemaking
would change for accuracy the text ``requirements of this chapter'' to
``requirements of this subchapter''. The applicable subchapter would be
subchapter O, which includes 33 CFR parts 151 through 159.
C. Part 156--Oil and Hazardous Material Transfer Operations
Section 156.120 Requirements for transfer.
Part 156 contains regulations related to oil and hazardous material
transfer operations. Paragraph (t)(2) of Sec. 156.120 currently
requires each PIC to have access to a copy of the facility Operations
Manual. Proposed Sec. 156.120(t)(2) would require the PIC to have
either a printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined
facility Operations Manual readily available in the marine transfer
area. For the purpose of this section, ``readily available'' means that
a printed or electronic copy of the manual is available for viewing
within the operating station of the PIC. The PIC would not be expected
to keep the manual in their possession while conducting routine rounds
during the transfer operation.
D. Technical Revisions Within Part 127 and Part 154
Throughout the sections amended by this proposed rule, we propose
to replace all uses of the word ``shall'' with ``must'' when specifying
the actions facility operators are required to perform. This would
align the regulations with plain language guidelines. Additionally,
where the COTP is required to respond or to notify a facility, we
propose changing ``the COTP shall'' to ``the COTP will'' to state
clearly what the COTP will do in certain cases. This change would help
clarify what the facility operators can expect from the COTP and align
the regulations with plain language guidelines. These proposed
technical revisions would not change requirements for facility
operators or the Coast Guard.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of the analysis
based on these statutes and Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
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.''
Although this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action,
it provides a cost savings and, therefore, DHS considers it an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See the OMB Memorandum,
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (April 5, 2017).
A Regulatory Analysis (RA) follows. The first section covers the
alternatives considered, the second covers the affected population, the
third covers the cost savings components, and the fourth discusses the
summary of the cost savings and costs.
This proposed rulemaking would result in a cost savings to industry
and to the Coast Guard because it would allow operators of facilities
that transfer LNG and LHG or facilities that transfer oil or hazardous
material in bulk (MTR) to submit Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments to the Coast Guard in electronic or in print
format. LNG and LHG facilities are required to submit Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments, while MTR facilities are
required to submit only Operations Manuals and amendments.
Under current regulations, facility operators are required to send
two printed copies of each manual and amendments to the COTP. The
proposed rulemaking would permit these documents to be submitted
electronically. Facility operators exercising this option would no
longer need to assemble and mail printed versions, resulting in cost
savings. The proposed rulemaking would also permit facility owners
mailing their documentation in print format to submit only one copy of
their documents, resulting in another cost savings.
Additionally, current regulation requires those facility operators
whose documents were not approved by the COTP to resubmit any
revisions. These are currently sent to the COTP in print format. The
proposed rulemaking would permit facility operators to send in their
documents in electronic or print formats. Facility operators exercising
this option would no longer need to
[[Page 75977]]
assemble and mail printed versions, resulting in cost savings.
Finally, the proposed rulemaking would permit facilities to keep
documentation in either electronic or print format at their facility's
marine transfer area. Currently this documentation is kept in print
format at these locations. According to Coast Guard subject matter
experts (SME) from the Office of Port and Facility Compliance (CG-FAC),
the typical facility has, on average, two marine transfer areas.\2\ LNG
and LHG facilities are required to keep one copy of an Operations
Manual and one copy of an Emergency Manual (and to keep each manual up-
to-date with amendments) at each of its marine transfer areas. MTR
facility operators are required to keep only one Operations Manual (and
amendments) at marine transfer areas. Those facility operators that
exercise the option to use electronic documents instead of print would
experience a cost savings resulting from no longer having to assemble
these printed documents (two copies, one for each marine transfer
area), as well as not having to physically place this documentation at
the two marine transfer areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on an SME assessment from CG-FAC. All Coast Guard SME
input assessments mentioned in this NRPM, unless stated otherwise,
are from CG-FAC.
\3\ These areas are not the same as the administrative offices
of the facilities; hence, labor time needs to be expended to place
Manuals there after they are assembled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rulemaking would also result in a cost savings to the
Coast Guard. Currently, when the COTP examines an Operations or
Emergency Manual and finds it meets the regulatory requirements or is
``adequate'', they must return a stamped copy to the facility. Under
the proposed rulemaking, the COTP would not return a copy of the
adequate manual via mail. The COTP would have the option to send either
a printed or electronic letter back to facility stating that the manual
has been examined by the Coast Guard.\4\ As a result, the Coast Guard
would experience a cost savings from not having to handle and mail back
to the facility a stamped, printed version of the manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Coast Guard envisions sending back an electronic format
of the manual with an electronically stamped watermark,
notification, or similar method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, if the COTP finds ''inadequacies'' in the
submitted manual, meaning the manual does not meet the regulatory
requirements, the COTP must mail back a copy of the manual, or a
notification, with annotations or comments on how to correct the
manual.\5\ Based on the requirements in the proposed rulemaking, the
COTP would only be required to send electronically or by mail a letter
explaining why the manual does not meet the requirements of the part,
reducing costs for the Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The word ``inadequacies'' is used on numerous occasions in
the text of the current regulation. Sections where the word is
explicitly cited include Sec. 154.320(a)(1) and Sec.
154.320(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In table 1, we show a summary of the impacts of the NPRM.
Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of the NPRM \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..................... Updates 33 CFR parts 127
and 154 to permit regulated
facilities to submit Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals and
amendments in electronic or printed
format.
Updates 33 CFR parts 127
and 154 to permit regulated
facilities that submit printed
Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments to submit
only one copy in that format.
Updates 33 CFR parts 127
and 154 to permit the Coast Guard
to send notices of adequacy or
inadequacy to facilities
electronically.
Updates 33 CFR parts 127
and 154 to permit regulated
facilities to store electronic or
printed versions of their
Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments, at the
marine transfer areas of their
facilities.
Affected Population (Annually).... 60 facilities that transfer LNG and
LHG and 703 MTR facilities (total
of 763 facilities) *
Costs Savings to Industry ($2019, 10-year cost savings: $255,007.
7% discount rate). Annualized: $36,307.
Costs Savings to the Coast Guard 10-year cost savings: $52,160.
($2019, 7% discount rate). Annualized: $7,426.
Total Cost Savings ($2019, 7% 10-year cost savings: $307,167.
discount rate). Annualized: $43,734.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Of the 60 LNG/LHG facilities, 54 are forecast to submit their
documentation in electronic format and 6 in paper. Of the 703 MTR
facilities, 527 are expected to submit their documents in electronic
format and 176 in paper. For a detailed discussion of these estimates
and calculations, refer to the ``affected population'' section of this
Regulatory Analysis.
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Alternatives Considered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ All dollar figures are closest whole dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We considered three alternatives. The first is a continuation of
current regulation (no change). The second is a modification to the
current regulations that would require all regulated facilities to
submit their required Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and
amendments electronically. The third is giving regulated facilities
flexibility on submitting documentation in either electronic or printed
format. We discuss each in more detail in the following sections.
Alternative 1 --No Change.
This alternative would require regulated facility operators to
continue to submit two printed copies of the Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals, and the COTP to continue to examine these manuals
and to return them by mail. This alternative would also require
facility operators to maintain the manuals in a printed format near the
marine transfer areas of their facilities. This alternative would not
result in any cost savings and would not meet the Coast Guard's goal of
reducing regulatory burdens under Executive Order 13771. Therefore, we
rejected Alternative 1.
Alternative 2--All Electronic Format Manuals.
This alternative would amend regulations to require regulated
facility operators to submit only electronic copies of the Operations
Manuals and
[[Page 75978]]
Emergency Manuals, and the COTP to examine these manuals (and
amendments) and return them only via email or other electronic means.
Facility operators would not be permitted the option of submitting
printed documents. Facilities would be permitted to keep Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals in printed or electronic format at their
marine transfer areas.
Facility operators may experience greater cost savings than what
was proposed by Alternative 1 or the chosen alternative because they
would be required to submit their documentation electronically and to
maintain electronic copies of all their manuals in the marine transfer
areas. Savings from this alternative would result from the facilities
not having to assemble and mail printed documentation to the COTP.
Savings would also result from facilities no longer needing to assemble
printed documentation for the marine transfer areas and having to place
it there physically. For alternative 1, as there is no possibility of
such electronic submissions, there would be no such savings.
Alternative 2 would result in greater savings with respect to these as
it would require all in-scope facilities to submit all their documents
electronically while the chosen will not result in all documents being
submitted electronically as some operators are expected to send in
their documentation in paper format.
However, Alternative 2 also has the highest potential cost
associated with its implementation. The reason for this is that a
number of facilities may not currently have the required information
technology (IT) infrastructure to permit the use of electronic
documentation at their marine transfer areas. For those facilities
without the pre-existing IT infrastructure, building the infrastructure
could prove expensive compared to the cost savings from reducing the
amount of printed Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals. Factors
affecting the building of such IT infrastructure (not all inclusively)
include:
The size of the facility;
How many marine transfer areas there are (each area must
have an Operations Manual, and LNG and LHG facilities must also have an
Emergency Manual);
The number and type of products transferred at the
facility;
The types of transfer operations occurring at the
facility; and
Any pre-existing infrastructure that can already
facilitate accessing and using electronic documentation (such as ``Wi-
Fi,'' or hardwired broadband connections).
Based on these factors, for some facilities the total costs
required to access electronic documents could exceed the cost savings
experienced from switching to electronic documentation In addition,
these IT costs could disproportionately affect facilities that are
relatively small in terms of revenue. Therefore, we rejected
Alternative 2.
Alternative 3--Option to Use Either Printed or Electronic Manuals.
This alternative is the selected alternative for this rulemaking.
This alternative explicitly states that facility operators can submit
the required Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and amendments
either in print or electronically. In addition, if submitting the
required documents in print, only one copy would be required. In this
alternative, facilities facing higher IT improvement costs could
continue to use printed manuals and submissions. Hence, this
alternative will lead to the highest net benefits of the three
alternatives.
For these reasons, Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative. We
provide a discussion of this alternative below.
Affected Population
We identified 121 LNG and LHG facilities that could be potentially
impacted by this regulation, based on a search of the U.S. Coast
Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)
database.\7\ We also identified 2,497 MTR facilities that could be
potentially impacted. A discussion follows describing how the impacted
population itself is reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The search of MISLE was conducted on November 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG and LHG facilities transfer liquefied natural gas and liquefied
hazardous gas from vessels to the shore or from the shore to the
vessel. MTR facilities transfer oil or hazardous material in bulk from
vessels to the shore or from the shore to the vessel. Operations
Manuals provide information relating to these LNG, LHG, and MTR
facilities, such as physical characteristics (including plans and maps)
and descriptions of transfer systems; mooring areas; and diagrams of
piping, electrical systems, control rooms, and security systems, among
other items.\8\ Emergency Manuals cover topics such as emergency
shutdown procedures, descriptions of fire equipment and other emergency
equipment as well as their operating procedures, first-aid procedures
and stations, and emergency response procedures, among other items.\9\
These manuals vary in terms of their size, anywhere from 0.5-inch,
three-ring binders containing 50 pages, to 3-inch, three-ring
binders.\10\ We have estimated these 3-inch, three-ring binders to be
514 pages in length.\11\ The 0.5-inch manuals are the most common size,
accounting for the majority of manuals.\12\ Therefore, in our cost
savings estimate, we assume that all manuals are 0.5-inch, three-ring
binders of 50 pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A full list of details of what Operations Manuals need to
cover for MTR facilities can be found under 33 CFR 154.310 and for
LNG and LHG facilities under 33 CFR 127.305 and 127.1305.
\9\ The full list items that Emergency Manuals need to cover for
LNG facilities can be found under 33 CFR 127.307 and for LHG
127.1307.
\10\ Coast Guard SMEs.
\11\ The estimate of 514 was based on the maximum size capacity
of 5 3-inch three ring binders found on 5 office supply stores on
the internet. The 5 were: Office Depot (https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/502062/Wilson-Jones-Binder-3-Rings-36percent/ & https://www.amazon.com/WLJ36849NB-Wilson-3-Ring-Holder-Binders/dp/B003QX85TG/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=WLJ36849NB&qid=1573426316&s=office-products&sr=1-2, accessed November 5, 2019, 480 pages), Staples
(https://www.staples.com/Simply-3-Inch-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Black-26857/product_1319200, accessed November 5, 2019, 460 pages),
Walmart (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Universal-Economy-Round-Ring-View-Binder-3-Capacity-Black-UNV20991/21454956 and https://www.amazon.com/UNV20991-Universal-Round-Economy-Binder/dp/B005V3T3P4/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=universal+economy+3+ring+3+inch+binder&qid=1573424798&s=office-products&sr=1-1, accessed November 5, 2019,
480 pages), Target (https://www.target.com/p/avery-3-34-one-touch-slant-rings-600-sheet-capacity-heavy-duty-view-binder-white/-/A-14432722 & https://www.amazon.com/Avery-Heavy-Duty-One-Touch-670-Sheet-79693/dp/B000VXF23G/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Avery+3%22+One+Touch+Slant+Rings+600+Sheet+Capacity+Heavy-Duty+View+Binder&qid=1573425256&sr=8-2, accessed November
5, 2019, 600 pages), and Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Wilson-Jones-Binder-Basic-W362-49W/dp/B0001N9WM8/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=3+ring+3+inch+binder&qid=1573433167&sr=8-5,
accessed on November 5, 2019, 550 pages). The mean of these 5 comes
to 514 pages.
\12\ Coast Guard SMEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to both Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals are
intended to keep those manuals up to date.\13\ Their length depends on
the information that needs to be updated. If the information is
significant, these amendments may be as long as the original document
submitted to the COTP. If the change is relatively minor, the
amendments may only be a few pages. If the amendments are only a few
pages, they are submitted to the COTP
[[Page 75979]]
as individual pages. The COTP then examines those pages and, after
determining their adequacy, inserts them into the previously existing
edition of the Operations Manual or Emergency Manual.\14\ Coast Guard
SMEs estimate that 80 percent of amendments to Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals consist of 5-page inserts while 20 percent consist of
documents that are as long as full-length Operations or Emergency
Manuals. In our cost savings estimate for this RA, we assumed that all
amendments would be 5 pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A complete list of items that must be kept current can be
found, for LHG facilities, for operations manuals in 33 CFR
127.1305. For LNG facilities, the complete list can be found, for
operations manuals, in 33 CFR 127.305, and for emergency manuals in
33 CFR 127.307. For MTR facilities, 33 CFR 154.300(b) and 33 CFR
154.300(b)(1) states that ``the facility operator shall maintain the
operations manual so that it is current''.
\14\ The original pages that the newly submitted ones replace
are disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard examined MISLE data between 2009 and 2019
(inclusively) to determine that an average of 60 Emergency Manuals and
Operations Manuals and amendments are filed by LNG and LHG facilities
per year.\15\ Of those 60 Manuals and amendments, there were an average
of 18 Manuals and 42 amendments. The number of these Manuals and
amendments differ from the numbers in appendices A and B in the latest
Collection of Information (COI).\16\ The numbers in appendix A and B
were 8 Manuals and 14 amendments, for a total of 22.\17\ The
explanation for the difference in numbers (60 versus 22) is
attributable to two reasons. One is that the total LNG and LHG
populations were different between the COI and the MISLE pull this RA
is based on. The COI mentioned a combined LNG and LHG population of 108
while the MISLE indicated 121. This difference was because the MISLE
data was pulled on different dates. This RA's MISLE pull was performed
on November 18, 2019 while the MISLE pull the COI was based on was
sometime previous to the date of its publication, August 30, 2019. The
second and related reason for the numerical difference is that the
Manual and amendment numbers themselves were pulled on different dates.
The COI data was pulled before the publication of the COI, on August
30, 2019, while the RA was based pulled from MISLE on November 18,
2019. Hence, the latter would be expected to be larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This number is rounded to the nearest whole number, as are
all population numbers mentioned below.
\16\ Collection of Information under Review by Office of
Management and Budget, Control Number: 1625-0049. This was published
in the Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 169, on August 30, 2019.
\17\ In the COI there were 6 manuals and 12 amendments for LHG
facilities and 2 manuals and 2 amendments for LNG facilities (for a
total of 8 manuals and 14 amendments and a total of 22 of both).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard SMEs estimate that 90 percent of LNG and LHG facilities
would submit their documentation to the Coast Guard electronically.
Thus, the affected annual population of LNG and LHG facilities is
estimated to be, 54 per year with respect to facilities that will be
submitting their documentation in electronic form, The population that
will be submitting their documents in paper form (this is also referred
to as ``traditional'' form this document) is estimated to be six, the
remaining 10% of the LNG and LHG facilities. Hence, the total impacted
population of LNG and LHG facilities is 60.
The average number of Operations Manuals and amendments filed by
MTR facilities was 703 for the same period (2009-2019).\18\ MTR
facilities are only required to file Operations Manuals and amendments,
not Emergency Manuals and amendments. Of those 703 Manuals and
amendments, there were an average of 261 Manuals and 442 amendments.
Since Coast Guard SMEs in CG-FAC estimate that 75 percent of MTR
facilities would submit their documentation in an electronic format,
the estimated regulated population of MTRs is 527 with respect to
electronic submission. Twenty-five percent of MTR facilities are
estimated to submit their documentation in paper traditional form,
accounting for another 176 firms.\19\ As a result, the total MTR
affected population is 703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The search of MISLE was conducted on November 18, 2019.
\19\ This number is rounded up to closest whole number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of annually impacted facilities broken out by LNG and
LHG and MTR facility, as well as the number of different types of
manuals and amendments for each facility type, is summarized in the
following table.
Table 2--Affected Population and Number of Manuals and Amendments Filed Annually
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Total Total Total operations and
Total operations and Total operations and operations and emergency Total manual
operations and emergency Total operations and emergency Total manuals emergency manual amendments
Facility type emergency manual documents emergency manual filed manuals filed amendments filed in
manuals filed amendments filed manuals filed amendments electronically in traditional filed in traditional
filed electronically filed form traditional form
electronically form
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG/LHG......................................... 18 42 60 16 38 54 2 4 6
MTR............................................. 261 442 703 195.75 331.5 527 65 111 176
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: all ``total'' numbers rounded to closest whole number.
Cost Savings Components
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the proposed rulemaking's cost savings for
the private sector and for the Coast Guard. Table 3 provides the
private sector's cost savings by private sector population group (LNG,
LHG, and MTR) as well as by the four different cost savings categories
estimated. Table 4 summarizes Coast Guard's cost savings.
Table 3--Annual Cost Savings of Proposed Rulemaking to Private Sector by
Population and Cost Savings Element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual net
Population Cost savings element cost savings
($2019) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG and LHG.................... Savings from not having $498
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) to mail to
the COTP \2\.
Savings from not having 234
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) for
placement at facility
marine transfer areas
\3\.
[[Page 75980]]
Savings from not having 994
to mail manuals (and
amendments) to the
COTP.
Savings from not having 1,605
to place printed
manuals (and
amendments) at
facility marine
transfer areas.
----------------------------------------
Total Annual LNG and LHG ....................... \4\ 3,331
Cost Savings.
MTR............................ Savings from not having 9,895
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) to mail to
the COTP \5\.
Savings from not having 2,023
to produce printed
manuals (and
amendments) for
placements at facility
marine transfer areas
\6\.
Savings from not having 13,536
to mail manuals (and
amendments) to the
COTP.
Savings from not having 7,522
to place printed
manuals (and
amendments) at
facility marine
transfer areas.
----------------------------------------
Total Annual MTR Cost ....................... \7\ 32,976
Savings.
----------------------------------------
Total.................. ....................... \8\ 36,307
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rounded to closest whole dollar.
\2\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing and labor required to
assemble.
\3\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing and labor required to
assemble. It is also assumed that each facility, as per Coast Guard
SME assessment, has an average of 2 marine transfer areas.
\4\ Total figure may not be exact due to fact preceeding numbers have
been rounded.
\5\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing and labor required to
assemble.
\6\ Includes cost of binder, paper, printing and labor required to
assemble. It is also assumed that each facility, as per Coast Guard
SME assessment, has an average of 2 marine transfer areas.
\7\ Total figure may not be exact due to fact preceeding numbers have
been rounded.
\8\ Total figure may not be exact due to fact preceeding numbers have
been rounded.
Table 4--Cost Savings Implications of Proposed Rulemaking to Coast Guard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual net
Population Cost savings element cost savings
($2019) \20\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard................ Cost Savings from not $7,426
having to mail printed
manuals (and
amendments) back to
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings Methodology, Calculations, and Estimates
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Rounded to closest whole dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We broke out the cost savings analysis for this rulemaking into
three sections. The first examines the cost savings for the private
sector. The second discusses cost savings for the Coast Guard. The
third provides an aggregated summary of the cost savings as well as the
estimates on a discounted basis.
Private Sector Cost Savings
We broke out cost savings for the private sector into two
categories. The first involves the cost savings associated with
facility operators having the option to submit Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals (and amendments) in electronic format. The second
involves the option to place electronic editions of their Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals (and amendments) at their marine transfer
areas. The cost savings associated with each of these is discussed in
separate sections below.
Cost Savings From the Reduced Numbers of Operations and Emergency
Manuals (and Amendments) Sent to the Coast Guard
LNG and LHG facility operators are currently required to submit two
copies of their Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments
to the COTP, as required.\21\ Generally, they are not sent at the same
time.\22\ MTR facility operators are currently required to submit two
copies of their Operations Manuals and amendments.\23\ Although current
regulations do not explicitly state that the copies submitted must be
printed, the wording and context suggest the use of printed documents,
and current industry practice is to submit printed documents.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 33 CFR 127.019(a) and (b).
\22\ Due to fact that they are usually written by different
personnel and do not need to be received simultaneously, they are
generally not sent together.
\23\ 33 CFR 154.300(a).
\24\ The current regulation regarding the two-copy requirement
was issued in 1988 for LNG and LHG facilities (53 FR 3370, Feb. 5,
1988), and in 1996 for MTR facilities (61 FR 41458, Aug. 8, 1996).
At that time, it was not possible to electronically send a document
as large and complicated as a complete Operations or Emergency
Manual as an attachment via email or other electronic means.
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals can range in size from 0.5-
inch 3 ring binders to 3-inch 3 ring binders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost components that make up the 0.5-inch binders consist of
the actual cost of the empty 0.5-inch, 3 ring binder, the cost of 50
pages of paper, the cost of printing those 50 pages, and the labor
required to put the manual together. The cost of all these elements,
with the notable exception of labor, are the same whether the manual is
for an LNG and LHG facility or an MTR facility. We estimate that the
cost of the empty 0.5-inch binders, in 2019-dollar terms, is $3.66,
based on the mean found for 0.5-inch binders from 5
[[Page 75981]]
different websites selling this item.\25\ We estimate the cost of 50
sheets of copier paper to be 62.5 cents, based on the mean we found for
boxes of 500 pages from 5 different supply stores.\26\ We found the
cost to print in black and white, 50 pages, to be $2.23.\27\ Combined,
these costs come to $6.51 (rounded to closest whole cent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The five different websites were: Office Depot (https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/765530/Aurora-EarthView-Round-Ring-Organization-Binder/) ($5.99), Staples (https://www.staples.com/Simply-5-inch-Light-Use-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Red-26852/product_1337664) ($3.29), Walmart (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-0-5-inch-Durable-Binder-Clearview-Cover-White/945565181)
($2.47), Target (https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071) ($2.59), and Amazon
(https://www.amazon.com/Avery-Economy-Binder-0-5-Inch-Round/dp/B0006SWEEG/ref=sr_1_6?qid=1583117388&refinements=p_n_feature_keywords_two_browse-bin%3A7103303011&s=office-products&sr=1-6) ($4.60). All websites
cited were accessed on Nov. 10, 2019. The mean of all these websites
is $3.66.
\26\ The websites were: Office Depot (https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/841195/Office-Depot-Copy-And-Print-Paper/) ($8.29), Staples (https://www.staples.com/500+ream+paper/directory_500%20ream%20paper?sby=1) ($5.79), Walmart (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Copy-Paper-8-5x11-92-Bright-20-lb-1-ream-500-Sheets/487634010) ($5.79), Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Hammermill-Recycled-Printer-Letter-086790R/dp/B009ZMP31K/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=500+ream+paper&qid=1573437715&sr=8-6) ($9.20),
and Target (https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071) ($3.99). The mean average of
these five is $6.25. Dividing $6.25 by 500 pages this totals .625
cents a page. That amount multiplied by 50 pages gives us a cost of
62.5 cents.
\27\ The cost found in ``Ink-onomics: Can you Save Money by
Spending More on Your Printer'', PCWorld, May 2, 2012 (https://www.pcworld.com/article/254899/ink_onomics_can_you_save_money_by_spending_more_on_your_printer_.html
) was found to be 3.9 cents per page for printers costing over $200.
This May 2012 dollar figure was converted to $2019 using a GDP
deflator (https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1910=x&0=-99&1921=survey&1903=4&1904=2009&1905=2018&1906=a&1911=0). This
deflator was the BEA, NIPA, Table 1.1.4 Price Indexes for Gross
Domestic Product, Annual Series, last revised on April 29, 2020.
This can be accessed by, in the previously mentioned link, clicking
the modify button on the right, choosing ``annual'' series, and then
``refresh table''. The GDP deflator for 2012 was 100 and for 2019
112.348. Hence, 3.9 cents was multiplied by 12.348% to yield a
figure of 4.45 cents (rounded to closest whole penny. Multiplying
this figure by 50 (for the number of pages) yields, in turn, $2.23
for 50 pages (rounded to closest whole penny).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the labor costs between LNG and LHG and MTR facilities are
different, the labor component of assembling these manuals differ.
According to Coast Guard SMEs as well as COI 1625-0049, ``Waterfront
Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Hazardous
Gas'', clerical workers perform this function. In the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) website, under North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) industry 483000 (Water Transportation), there was no
specific labor category for clerical workers. The closest we were able
to find was ``Office Clerks, General'' (Occupational Code 43-9061).\28\
The mean hourly wage for this category of labor was found to be
$19.92.\29\ As wages account for only a portion of total employee costs
(employee benefits account for the other part), the wages need to be
adjusted to take into account benefits. Using the BLS U.S. Department
of Labor New Release for March 19, 2020 (USDL-0451) benefits for
employees in the ``Production, Transportation and Material Moving''
sector of the economy, private sector, were found to be account for
$10.62 per hour, or 52% of wages.30 31 Thus the fully
burdened wage rate is estimated at $30.28 per hour for LNG and LHG
facilities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``May 2019 National Industry-Sepcific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 483000-Water Transportation,
(www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_483000.htm), downloaded September 6,
2020.
\29\ Ibid.
\30\ www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192020.pdf,
referenced September 6, 2020.
\31\ Table 5, page 10, BLS U.S. Department of Labor New Release
for March 19, 2020 (USDL-0451), (www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192020.pdf, referenced September 6, 2020. According to this
document, for the ``production, transportation and material moving''
industry, benefits were $10.62 per hour while wages were $20.41 (for
a ratio of benfits to wages of 52%).
\32\ $19.92 + ($19.92 x 52%) = $30.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Coast Guard SMEs as well as the latest COI 1625-0093,
``Facilities Transferring Oil and Hazardous Material in Bulk--Letter of
Intent and Operations Manual'', MTR facilities use general and
operations managers to assemble Operations Manuals. On the BLS website,
under NAICS industry 483000 (Water Transportation) general and
operations managers (Occupational Code 11-1021) were found to have an
hourly mean wage of $65.81.\33\ As stated previously, according to the
BLS, employees in the ``Production, Transportation and Material
Moving'' sector of the economy, private sector, were found to have
benefits associated with 52% of wages in that industry.\34\ Hence, the
fully burdened labor rate for general and operations managers is
$100.03 per hour.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``May 2019 National Industry-Sepcific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 483000-Water Transportation,
(www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_483000.htm), downloaded September 6,
2020.
\34\ Table 5, page 10, BLS U.S. Department of Labor New Release
for March 19, 2020 (USDL-0451), (www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192020.pdf), referenced September 6, 2020.
\35\ $65.81 + ($65.81 x 52%) = $100.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the assembly of a 0.5-inch, 50-page manual, we
performed the task ourselves and found that it took an average of 5.12
minutes (or 0.09 hours).\36\ As a result, the labor cost of assembly
for an LNG and LHG facility came to $2.73.\37\ For an MTR facility, the
cost came to $9.00.\38\ Thus, for an LNG and LHG facility, we estimate
the total cost of assembling a 0.5-inch binder for an Operations Manual
or Emergency Manual to be $9.25.\39\ It should be emphasized that these
are the costs associated with producing one copy of an Operations
Manual or of an Emergency Manual (they are estimated to cost the same
to assemble). For an Operations Manual for an MTR facility, we estimate
total cost to assemble to be $15.52.\40\ All binder assembly costs are
shown in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ This time estimate is based on the average amount of time
the Coast Guard consumed to print 50 pages and to assemble them in a
0.5-inch 3 ring binder.
\37\ 0.09 hrs x $30.28 = $2.73.
\38\ 0.09 hrs x $100.03 = $9.00.
\39\ $3.66 (cost of binder) + $0.63 (cost of blank paper) +
$2.23 (printing cost) + $2.73 (labor cost of assembly) = $9.258.
\40\ $3.66 (cost of binder) + $0.63 (cost of blank paper) +
$2.23 (printing cost) + $9.00 (labor cost of assembly) = $15.52.
Table 5--Cost To Assemble 0.5-Inch 3 Ring Binders for LNG and LHG and MTR Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5-Inch 3 ring binder assembly costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binder Paper Printing Labor Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG and LHG.................................... $3.66 $0.63 $2.23 $2.73 $9.25
MTR............................................ 3.66 0.63 2.23 9.00 15.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75982]]
As amendments to both Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals are
usually 5 pages, the cost of paper is estimated to total $0.06.\41\ The
cost of printing is estimated to total $0.22.\42\ The total cost of
amendments, other than labor and shipping, is $0.28 per amendment.
These costs are the same regardless whether the amendment is for an LNG
and LHG facility or an MTR facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The mean cost of a 500-page ream of paper based on 5 prices
at different retailers was found to be $6.25. Dividing $6.25 by 500
yields a per-sheet price of 1.25 cents per page. Multiplying 1.25 by
5 yields 6.25 cents, which is rounded down to 6 cents.
\42\ As stated previously, based on the article ``Ink-onomics:
Can you Save Money by Spending More on your Printer?'', PCWorld, May
2, 2012, the price of printing was estimated at 4.45 per page. 4.45
x 5 pages = 22.25 cents, which we round to the nearest whole cent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of labor for assembling amendments is different, due to
the difference in labor costs between LNG and LHG facilities and MTR
facilities. As stated previously, we found the labor cost for LNG and
LHG facilities to be $65.81 per hour for LNG and LHG facilities, and
$100.03 for MTR facilities. We found that the printing of these 5 pages
and their collection from a printer took 1.25 minutes (0.02 hours).
Hence, we estimate the labor costs for LNG and LHG facilities at $1.32
and for MTR facilities $2.00.43 44 The total costs of
creating a 5-page amendment for an LNG and LHG facility is $1.56 per
document and $2.42 for MTR facilities.45 46 These costs are
provided in detail in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ $65.81 x 0.02 = $1.316.
\44\ $100.03 x 0.02 = $2.0006.
\45\ $0.06 (cost of paper) + $0.22 (cost to print pages) + $1.32
(labor cost to assemble) = $1.60.
\46\ $0.06 (cost of paper) + $0.22 (cost to print pages) + $2.00
(labor cost to assemble) = $2.28.
Table 6--Cost To Assemble 5-Page Amendments for LNG and LHG and MTR Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five-page amendment assembly costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost element Paper Printing Labor Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG and LHG..................................... $0.06 $0.22 $1.32 $1.60
MTR............................................. 0.06 0.22 2.00 2.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost of assembling each manual and amendment, we
also considered shipping and handling costs. As there are situations
where only one copy of a document needs to be mailed and other
situations where two are needed, shipping and handling costs must be
calculated for both scenarios.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ For example, currently, when documents are initially sent
to the Coast Guard two copies of each are currently required to be
sent but when documents are required to be sent to the Coast Guard
to correct inadequacies found by the Coast Guard, only one copy of a
document needs to be sent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it is a legal requirement for these facilities to send
their documents to the COTP, we assume that the manuals and amendments
would be sent with a mail service that permits tracking. We also
assumed that facilities would use a cost-effective ground shipping
method.\48\ As of August 7, 2017, there were 41 COTP zones.\49\ All of
these sites are clustered around shipping points in order to ensure
that COTPs can perform their functions. Hence, no facility should be
very far, geographically, from a shipping point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The exact amount of time depends on the relevant applicable
section of the regulations. 33 CFR 127.019(b) and 145.325(c) give
facilities a time period of 30 days to file, 145.320(a)(1) and
145.320(b)(1) 45 days and 145.325(b) 60 days.
\49\ U.S. Coast Guard Homeport, https://homeport.uscg.mil/#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We assume that the manuals and amendments are sent via a
shippingservice such as United Parcel Service (UPS) or FedEx. As of
November 2019, the U.S. Postal Service did not publish retail guides
containing information as detailed and comparable to the UPS and FedEx
Guides, that were readily available to the public. Hence it was not
possible to estimate mailing costs for the U.S. Postal Service that
would be as detailed and comparable to those estimated for UPS and
FedEx. We assume shipping distances to correspond to zone 2 distances,
in the UPS and FedEx pricing guides, as this is the closest shipping
distance price point.\50\ Regulations require that two copies be
submitted to the COTP. Therefore, we calculate the shipping cost for
two 0.5-inch binders.\51\ The total weight for two 0.5-inch binders
with 50 pages was an estimated 2.8 pounds, or 5.6 pounds total. Based
on a 6-pound package, as of November 2019, the average for these
shipping services is $10.11.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ As of November 2019, the UPS pricing guide ``2019 UPS Rate
and Service Guide, Retail Rates, updated November 4, 2019'' (https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/en_US/retail_rates.pdf) was
available on-line as of November 8, 2019; The latest available FedEx
price guide was ``Federal Express Service Guide, January 7, 2019,
updated November 1, 2019'' (https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2019.pdf).
\51\ The weight of an empty 0.5-inch binder was estimated at 13
ounces. This was based on the mean weight of same 5 binders used to
determine the mean cost of 0.5-inch binders. For the web pages for
those binders, where weight data was available, the mean was
estimated. The web pages were: https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/765530/Aurora-EarthView-Round-Ring-Organization-Binder/;
https://www.staples.com/Simply-5-inch-Light-Use-Round-3-Ring-Binder-Red-26852/product_1337664; https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-0-5-inch-Durable-Binder-Clearview-Cover-White/945565181; https://www.target.com/p/avery-120-sheet-0-5-34-durable-view-ring-binder-black/-/A-16978071; https://www.amazon.com/Avery-Economy-Binder-0-5-Inch-Round/dp/B0006SWEEG/ref=sr_1_6?qid=1583117388&refinements=p_n_feature_keywords_two_browse-bin%3A7103303011&s=office-products&sr=1-6. The weight of the 50
pages was estimated at 32 ounces. This was based on the 5 web pages
that were used to determine the average price of paper. The weight
of a 500 page ream of paper, on each of these websites, was 320
ounces (50/500*320 = 32 ounces). Those 5 websites were: https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/841195/Office-Depot-Copy-And-Print-Paper/; https://www.staples.com/500+ream+paper/directory_500%20ream%20paper?sby=1; https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Copy-Paper-8-5x11-92-Bright-20-lb-1-ream-500-Sheets/487634010;
https://www.target.com/p/500ct-letter-printer-paper-white-up-up-153/-/A-75001545; https://www.amazon.com/Hammermill-Recycled-Printer-Letter-086790R/dp/B009ZMP31K/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=500+ream+paper&qid=1573437715&sr=8-6. 32 oz + 13
= 45 oz = 2.8 pounds.
\52\ ``2019 UPS Rate and Service Guide, Retail Rates, Updated
November 4, 2019'', p. 68; ``Federal Express Service Guide. January
7, 2019, updated November 1, 2019'', p. 68 and 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current regulations also require that, when the COTP determines
that the Operations Manual or Emergency Manual is inadequate, the
facility must send back one revised version of the manual, in paper
format. Under the proposed regulation, only one copy of the document
needs to be needs to be mailed back to the COTP. This can be in either
paper or electronic format. Hence, the shipping costs must also be
calculated for mailing a single 0.5-inch Operations Manual or Emergency
Manual. We estimate that a single 0.5-inch manual weighs 2.8 pounds.
For mailing purposes, UPS and FedEx would charge a cost associated with
a 3-pound item. The average of these mailing services is $9.56.
[[Page 75983]]
With respect to shipping costs associated with amendments, we make
many of the same assumptions that we do for shipping and handling 0.5-
inch manuals. For example, we assume that UPS or FedEx ground shipping
is the selected service. As either one or two 5-page amendments weigh
less than 1 pound, the shipping cost is the same whether one or two are
mailed together. That cost is $9.90 for UPS and $7.85 for FedEx (for a
mean of $8.88).\53\ Table 7 shows shipping costs for manuals and
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ ``2019 UPS Rate and Service Guide, Retail Rates, Updated
November 4, 2019'', p.68; ``Federal Express Service Guide. January
7, 2019, updated November 1, 2019'', p. 106.
Table 7--Shipping Costs for Manuals and Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping Costs for Manuals and Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Manual................................................ $9.56
2 Manuals............................................... 10.11
Amendments.............................................. 8.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, facilities must handle these manuals as part of the
shipping process. As stated previously, labor costs differ between LNG
and LHG facilities and MTR facilities. For LNG and LHG facilities, the
loaded labor rate is $65.81 per hour, and for MTR facilities $100.03.
We estimate the time required to assemble manuals to be 5 minutes (0.08
hours),\54\ rounded to the closest whole minute, for assembling either
one manual or two. \55\ As a result, we estimate labor time for
assembling manuals to mail to the COTP to cost $5.27 \56\ for LNG and
LHG facilities and $8.00 for MTR facilities.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ This includes time to obtain a box, box up a manual(s),
complete required mailing paperwork, and to place it into the office
``out'' mailbox.
\55\ Based on time samples we ran, we estimated that 4.8 minutes
were needed to remove the paper from the copier, put it in an
envelope, fill out the documentation and place it in the office pick
up tray for one manual. To package and complete two manuals, we
estimated that 5.1 minutes would be required. Rounding both to 5
minutes, this totals and estimated 0.08 hours.
\56\ $65.81 x 0.08 = $5.2648.
\57\ $100.03 x 0.08 = $8.0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor handling costs for amendments are also slightly different due
to the labor cost differences between LNG and LHG and MTR facilities.
We estimate that handling a package that contains either one or two 5-
page amendments, rounded to the nearest whole minute, takes 4 minutes
(0.07), regardless of facility type. As a result, we estimate labor-
handling costs for packages that held one or two amendments to be $4.61
\58\ for LNG and LHG facilities and $7.00 for MTR facilities. \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 0.07 x $65.81 = $4.6067, rounded to $4.61.
\59\ 0.07 x $100.03 = $7.0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The handling costs for all types of documents by both LNG and LHG
facilities and MTR facilities are summarized in Table 8 below.
Table 8--Handling Costs by Facility and Document Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handling (Labor Costs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals (One or Two 0.5- $5.27
inch Binder) for LNG and LHG Facilities................
Amendments (One or Two 5 page Amendment) for LNG and LHG 4.61
Facilities.............................................
Operations Manuals (One or Two 0.5-inch Binder) for MTR 8.00
Facilities.............................................
Amendments (One or Two 5 page Amendment) for MTR 7.00
Facilities.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 shows the mailing costs summarized in Table 7 added to the
labor handling costs in Table 8.
Table 9--Shipping and Handling Costs by Facility and Document Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping and Handling (Labor) Costs by Facility and Document Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals (one 0.5-inch \60\ $14.83
binder) for LNG and LHG facilities.....................
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals (two 0.5-inch \61\ 15.38
binders) for LNG and LHG facilities....................
Amendments (one or two 5-page amendments) for LNG and \62\ 13.49
LHG facilities.........................................
Operations Manuals (one 0.5-inch binder) for MTR \63\ 17.56
facilities.............................................
Operations Manuals (two 0.5-inch binders) for MTR \64\ 18.11
facilities.............................................
Amendments (one or two 5-page amendments) for MTR \65\ 15.88
facilities.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final component of the cost savings estimate to industry is
the quantity of manuals and amendments that facilities are sending to
the COTP. LNG and LHG facilities are currently required to submit two
copies of their Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments
to the COTP, and MTR facilities are currently required to send two
copies of their Operations Manuals (and amendments).\66\ The proposed
rulemaking would permit facilities to submit their documents in either
print or electronic format. Facility operators submitting
electronically would save the cost of assembling and shipping two
copies of their documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ $9.56 + $5.27 = $14.83.
\61\ $10.11 + $5.27 = $15.38.
\62\ $8.88 + $4.61 = $13.49.
\63\ $9.56 + $8.00 = $17.56.
\64\ $10.11 + $8.00 = $18.11.
\65\ $8.88 + $7.00 = $15.88.
\66\ It should be stressed that two copies need to be sent in
initially but if copies of manuals or amendments need to be sent in
again because they were found inadequate by the Coast Guard, only
one copy needs to be sent. This issue is discussed in more detail
later in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rulemaking also permits those facility operators
submitting printed documents to submit one copy instead of two. Hence,
those facilities would save the costs associated with producing and
mailing one copy of their manuals. Coast Guard SMEs estimate that 90
percent of LNG and LHG facilities will submit their manuals and
amendments electronically, and 75 percent of MTR facilities will submit
their manuals and amendments electronically. The reason
[[Page 75984]]
for this difference is that LNG and LHG facilities are much more likely
owned by large multi-national conglomerates than MTR facilities.\67\
LNG and LHG facilities are, therefore, more likely to more fully
utilize IT systems and more likely to submit their documents
electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ LNG and LHG facilities cost in the billions to build while
MTR, typically, cost much less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the review process of the initially submitted documents, the
COTP rejects a portion of the manuals and amendments submitted due to
inadequacies in meeting the regulatory requirements put forth in 33 CFR
parts 127 for LNG and LHG facilities or part 154 for MTR facilities.
Coast Guard SMEs estimate that 30 percent of the total number of all
manuals (not amendments) sent by facilities are inadequate and need to
be returned for corrections. For amendments, Coast Guard SMEs estimate
that the rejection rate is only 15 percent. The reason for the lower
rejection rate is that amendments are based on previously approved
documents and are shorter, having a lower chance of containing errors.
Under the current regulatory regime, facilities send back only one
copy. Hence, facility operators choosing to submit their documentation
electronically save the costs associated with mailing back that single
copy. For facility operators mailing in their modified documents in
print form, there are no cost savings.
In summary, the cost savings for the private sector come from:
LNG and LHG facilities printing and mailing fewer printed
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and
amendments (5 pages) to the Coast Guard.
LNG and LHG facilities printing and mailing fewer printed
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and
amendments (5 pages) that have to be resubmitted to the Coast Guard.
LNG and LHG facilities storing fewer printed Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and amendments (5
pages) at marine transfer areas.
MTR facilities printing and mailing fewer printed
Operations Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and amendments (5 pages) to the
Coast Guard (assembly and mailing).
MTR facilities printing and mailing fewer printed
Operations Manuals (0.5-inch binders) and amendments that have to be
resubmitted to the Coast Guard (assembly and mailing).
MTR facilities storing fewer printed Operations Manuals
(0.5-inch binders) and amendments (5 pages) at marine transfer areas.
We calculated the cost savings with several simple equations.
Generally, it is the annual population of facilities multiplied by the
number of manuals or amendments per facility multiplied by the facility
probability of transitioning to electronic multiplied by the production
and shipping costs. The costs savings from the proposed changes are the
same each year. Tables 10 through 16 show the annual cost savings to
facilities by activity. Table 10 is the cost savings to LNG and LHG
facilities from producing fewer Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals that are mailed to the Coast Guard. We expect 90 percent of LNG
and LHG facilities to convert their Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals to an electronic format.
The remaining 10 percent of LNG and LHG facilities, which we
classified as earlier as traditional, still experience some cost
savings since they would only be required to assemble one copy of their
manuals to initially mail to the COTP (instead of the current two). As
these 10 percent of LNG and LHG facilities will continue to send the
same number of ``corrected'' paper manuals (as under the current
regulatory regime) back to the COTP, they will not experience cost
savings with respect to these. The cost elements to produce manuals and
amendments were previously shown in tables 5 and 6.
The cost savings realized by LNG and LHG facilities are summarized
in table 10. A brief summary of the components of that table follows.
The term ``Population of Documents Forecast to be Filed'' is an
annual average of the number of Manuals and Amendments that have been
filed over the past 10 years. This was based on MISLE data. A more
thorough discussion of these numbers can be found in the ``affected
population'' section of the NPRM. ``The Expected Rate of Electronic
Documents Production'' is the percentage of documents expected to be
submitted in electronic format instead of paper. As stated previously,
the terms were based on Coast SME input. The 27 percent was derived
from the fact that SMEs estimate that 90 percent of manuals will be
submitted in electronic format and 30 percent of all Manuals submitted
to the Coast Guard are found inadequate for one reason or another.\68\
The 14 percent was derived from the 90 percent figure combined with the
SME estimate that 15 percent of all amendments submitted are found to
not be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 90% x 30% = 27%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Reduction in Paper Documents Needed'' column reflects the
documents no longer needed as a result of the actions in the first
column (compared to current regulatory regime). For example, in the
first row, when LNG and LHG facilities submit their manuals in
electronic form, as opposed to paper, they will not need to submit two
copies of electronic manuals. As a result, these facilities will
experience a cost savings that is equal to the cost of assembling the
documents. In the second row, the facilities that continue to submit
paper Manuals (instead of electronic) will experience a cost savings
from having to submit one document instead of two.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The current regulation requires the submission of two
documents while the proposed regulation only requires those
facilities submitting paper documentation to submit one copy of each
document instead of 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For inadequate documents that are submitted electronically to the
COTP, the cost of one paper document is saved as they a required to
send only one paper copy.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Facilities still continuing to submit paper documents to
address documents that were not initially accepted by the Coast
Guard will experience no cost savings as the current regulation
currently requires them to submit one copy.
Table 10--Annual LNG and LHG Production Cost Savings \71\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected rate
Population of of electronic Reduction in Total
LNG and LHG production cost documents documents documents Production production
savings from: forecast to production needed costs (each) cost savings
be filed (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals submitted Electronically 18 90 2 $9.25 $299.70
Manuals Submitted in the 18 10 1 9.25 16.65
Traditional Paper Form.........
Amendments Submitted 42 90 2 1.60 120.96
Electronically.................
[[Page 75985]]
Amendments Submitted in the 42 10 1 1.60 6.72
Traditional Paper Form.........
Inadequate Manuals (submitted 18 27 1 9.25 44.96
electronically)................
Inadequate Amendments (submitted 42 14 1 1.60 9.41
electronically)................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11 presents the cost savings to MTR facilities from producing
fewer Operations Manuals. Of MTR facilities, Coast Guard SMEs estimate
that 75 percent would convert their Operations Manuals to an electronic
format. The remaining 25 percent of MTR facilities would still
experience some cost savings since they would only be required to
produce and mail in one copy of their manuals (instead of the current
two).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ All figures rounded to nearest whole cent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to inadequate documents that have been returned to
facilities by the COTP, only those facilities that will be sending
their documents electronically will experience a cost savings. They
will no longer need to a paper version of the corrected document. The
traditional facilities that do not make use of electronic submissions
will not experience a cost savings as they will have to continue
sending in a single copy of their corrected paper Operations Manual or
Amendment.
In table 11 it can be seen that the number of Operations Manuals
that are forecast to be required annually in the future are 261 and the
number of Amendments 442. This was based on MISLE data. A more thorough
discussion of these numbers can be found in the ``affected population''
section of the NPRM. ``The Expected Rate of Electronic Documents
Production'' is the Percentage of documents expected to be submitted in
electronic format as opposed to paper. As stated previously the terms
were based on Coast Guard SME input. For the manuals this was 75
percent and for the amendments 25 percent.
The 23 percent was derived based on the fact that SMEs estimated
that of 30 percent of the manuals submitted electronically would
require correction.\72\ The 11 percent was derived from the 75 percent
figure combined with the SME estimate that 15 percent of all amendments
submitted are found to be inadequate.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 30% x 75% = 23% (rounded to closest whole percentage).
\73\ 15% x 75% = 11% (rounded to closest whole percentage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Reduction in Paper Documents Needed'' column reflects,
analogous to Table 10, the decrease in each type of documents required
in paper form. For inadequate documents that are submitted
electronically to the COTP, the cost of one paper document is saved as
they a required to send only one paper copy.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Facilties still continuting to submit paper documents to
address documents that were not initially accepted by the USCG will
experience no cost savings as the current regulation currently
requires them to submit one copy.
Table 11--Annual MTR Production Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected rate
Population of of electronic Reduction in Total
MTR production cost savings documents documents documents Production production
from: forecast to production needed costs (each) cost savings
be filed (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals Submitted Electronically 261 75 2 $15.52 $6,076.08
Manuals Submitted in the 261 25 1 15.52 1,012.68
Traditional Paper Form.........
Amendments Submitted 442 75 2 2.28 1,511.64
Electronically.................
Amendments Submitted in the 442 25 1 2.28 251.94
Traditional Paper Form.........
Inadequate Manuals (submitted 261 23 1 15.52 931.67
electronically)................
Inadequate Amendments (submitted 442 11 1 2.28 110.85
electronically)................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost savings associated with the need to
manufacture and assemble less documentation, there will also be a cost
savings associated with having to mail fewer documents to the COTP.
Tables 12 and 13 capture these savings by facility and document type.
The ``Population'' column represents the forecast total number of
each type of document expected to be submitted to the Coast Guard. The
``Expected Rate of Electronic Documents'' are the percentage of each
type of document that is expected to be submitted in electronic format.
The shipping costs are the costs associated with mailing and handling
each type of document. The shipping and handling costs are in table 9
and the discussion regarding their calculation immediately precedes
that table.
[[Page 75986]]
Table 12--Annual LNG and LHG Shipping Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population of
LNG and LHG shipping cost savings documents Expected rate of Shipping costs Total annual
from: forecast to be electronic (each) shipping cost
filed documents savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals Submitted Electronically.... 18 0.9 $15.38 $249.16
Manuals Submitted in the Traditional 18 0.1 14.83 26.69
Paper Form.........................
Amendments Submitted Electronically. 42 0.9 13.49 509.92
Amendments Submitted in the 42 0.1 13.49 56.66
Traditional Paper Form.............
Inadequate Manuals (submitted 18 0.27 14.83 72.07
electronically)....................
Inadequate Amendments (submitted 42 0.14 13.49 79.32
electronically)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 13--Annual MTR Shipping Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected rate of
Population of electronic Shipping costs Total annual
MTR shipping cost savings from: documents per documents (each) shipping cost
year production savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals Submitted Electronically.... 261 0.75 $18.11 $3,545,03
Manuals Submitted in the Traditional 261 0.25 17.56 1,145.79
Paper Form.........................
Amendments Submitted Electronically. 442 0.75 15.88 5,264.22
Amendments Submitted in the 442 0.25 15.88 1,754.74
Traditional Paper Form.............
Inadequate Manuals (submitted 261 0.23 17.56 1,054.13
electronically)....................
Inadequate Amendments (submitted 442 0.11 15.88 772.09
electronically)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, in tables 14 and 15, we show the cost savings to facilities
from assembling fewer Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals that are
stored at marine transfer areas.\75\ Marine transfer areas are those
parts of a facility where the products the facility transfers, from
vessel to shore or shore to vessel, are transferred. According to Coast
Guard SMEs, a facility typically has two marine transfer areas. These
cost savings are only for facilities that would save their
documentation at these areas in electronic format.\76\ Each facility is
currently required to keep a copy of their manuals at each marine
transfer areas. Facilities currently keep their records at these
locations in printed format. The reasons for this are similar to the
reasons for mailing printed editions of the Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals to the Coast Guard: The regulations that established
this requirement were originally published before it was commonly
accepted practice (or even possible) to access electronic records in a
portable fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ LNG and LHG facilities must have Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals at these locations, and MTR facilities have
Operations Manuals only.
\76\ This electronic documentation would be accessed via a
device such as an electronic tablet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Coast Guard SMEs, LNG and LHG facilities have a 50-
percent likelihood of storing their manuals and amendments in
electronic format at marine transfer areas, and MTR facilities have a
20-percent likelihood of storing them electronically.
The reason that these percentages are low is that for the adoption
of electronic documents at these areas, a facility must be equipped to
provide the ability to access electronic documentation at marine
transfer areas already.\77\ The cost of purchasing the new IT equipment
for these purposes greatly offsets the cost savings from using
electronic documentation, so facilities must already have the necessary
IT infrastructure in place to experience the cost savings. As LNG and
LHG facilities are typically much more capital intensive and state-of-
the-art in terms of IT infrastructure than MTR facilities, they are
more likely to use electronic documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ For example via Wi-Fi or hardwire connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated previously, the costs to assemble Manuals and amendments,
for LNG and LHG facilities, was $9.25 and $1.60 (each).\78\ As also
stated previously, the in-scope population was estimated at 18 for
Manuals and 42 amendments for LNG and LHG facilities.\79\ Combining
these numbers with the fact that there are an average of two marine
transfer areas per facility, we end up with the annual production cost
savings figures shown in table 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See Tables 5 and 6 and the discussions accompanying them.
\79\ See discussion under the ``affected population'' section of
this NPRM.
Table 14--Annual LNG and LHG Production Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Population of document use Marine Annual
Marine transfer area cost documents per at marine transfer areas Production production
savings: year transfer areas per facility costs (each) costs savings
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................... 18 50 2 $9.25 $166.50
Amendments...................... 42 50 2 1.60 67.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75987]]
As stated previously, the costs to assemble Manuals and amendments,
for MTR facilities, was $15.52 and $2.28 (each).\80\ As also stated
previously, the in-scope population was estimated at 261 for Manuals
and 442 amendments for MTR facilities.\81\ Combining these numbers with
the fact that there are an average of two marine transfer areas per
facility, we end up with the annual production cost savings figures
shown in table 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See Tables 5 and 6 and the discussions accompanying them.
\81\ See discussion under the ``affected population'' section of
this NPRM.
Table 15--Annual MTR Production Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Population of document use Marine Annual
Marine transfer area cost documents per at marine transfer area Production production
savings: year transfer areas per facility costs (each) costs savings
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................... 261 20 2 $15.52 $1,620.29
Amendments...................... 442 20 2 2.28 403.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in Tables 16 and 17, we show the labor cost savings to
facilities that choose to retain electronic documents instead of
printed documents at marine transfer areas. According to Coast Guard
SMEs, normally a PIC (or someone with similar background) would perform
this duty in an hour, due to the size of the facilities. The closest
occupation found to this in the BLS occupational code series was
``First Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers''
(Occupational Code 51-1011), under NAICS 325000 (Chemical
Manufacturing).\82\ We found the mean wage to be $35.43.\83\ We
estimated the loaded rate to be $53.50.84 85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ There is no comparable BLS occupational code under the
BLS's NAICS 483000 (Water Transportation) code 51-1011.
\83\ May 2019 National-Industry Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates, NAICS 325000 Chemical Manufacturing, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/naics3_325000.htm#51-0000, downloaded
September 30, 2020.
\84\ The loaded rate was estimated by accessing latest available
BLS News Release on Employer Costs for Employee Compensation June
2020 (News Release dated September 17, 2020, USDL-20-1736, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.htm, accessed September 30, 2020).
Normally the Coast Guard, to determine benefits, uses all workers in
private industry, transportation, and material moving as the basis.
Due to the fact that the labor category identified above was First
Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers, it was thought
more appropriate to use the line associated with ``production,
transportation and material moving, Production'' in table 2 instead.
LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities would be expected to have benefits
packages closer to this line item category than that associated with
line item ``private industry, transportation and material moving,
transportation and moving'' as they are closer, in terms of
workforce, to a production type environment than a transportation.
To calculate the benefits ratio, total compensation in this line
item ($28.70) was divided by ``wages and salaries'' ($19.00). This
provided a benefits ratio of 1.51.
\85\ $35.43 x 1.51 = $53.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the estimated loaded labor rate of $53.50 per hour,
multiplied by the in-scope populations discussed previously under the
``affected population'' portion of this economic analysis (18 manuals
for LNG and LHG facilities and 261 for MTR facilities as well as 42
amendments for LNG and LHG facilities and 442 for MTR) and the
estimated rate of electronic document use at marine transfer areas
discussed previously (50 percent at LNG and LHG facilities and 20
percent at MTR), we derive the annual labor cost savings in tables 16
and 17.
Table 16--Annual LNG and LHG Labor Cost Savings With Respect to Electronic and Operations Manuals (and
Amendments) That Would Not Have To Be Placed at Marine Transfer Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Population of document use Total annual
Labor of storing manuals and amendments documents per at marine Labor costs labor cost
year transfer areas savings
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................................... 18 50 $53.50 $481.50
Amendments...................................... 42 50 53.50 1,123.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17--Annual MTR Labor Cost Savings with Respect to Operations Manuals (and Amendments) that would not have
To Be placed at Marine Transfer Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic
Population of document use Total annual
Labor of storing manuals and amendments documents per at marine Labor costs labor cost
year transfer areas savings
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................................... 261 20 $53.50 $2,792.70
Amendments...................................... 442 20 53.50 4,729.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75988]]
Tables 18 and 19 show the total annual cost savings for LNG and LHG
and MTR facilities in both nominal and discounted terms. These savings
estimates were found by summing the previous tables for the total
number of facilities by respective facility type.
Table 18--Annual Cost Savings for LNG and LHG Facilities on a Nominal
Basis and Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discounted
LNG and LHG cost savings Nominal terms rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $3,330.92 $3,113.01
Year 2.............................. 3,330.92 2,909.35
Year 3.............................. 3,330.92 2,719.02
Year 4.............................. 3,330.92 2,541.14
Year 5.............................. 3,330.92 2,374.90
Year 6.............................. 3,330.92 2,219.53
Year 7.............................. 3,330.92 2,074.33
Year 8.............................. 3,330.92 1,938.62
Year 9.............................. 3,330.92 1,811.80
Year 10............................. 3,330.92 1,693.27
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 33,309.18 23,394.97
-----------------------------------
Annualized.................. ................ 3,330.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 19--Annual Cost Savings for MTR Facilities on a Nominal Basis and
Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discounted
MTR cost savings Nominal terms rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $32,976.35 $30,819.02
Year 2.............................. 32,976.35 28,802.82
Year 3.............................. 32,976.35 26,918.52
Year 4.............................. 32,976.35 25,157.50
Year 5.............................. 32,976.35 23,511.68
Year 6.............................. 32,976.35 21,973.53
Year 7.............................. 32,976.35 20,536.01
Year 8.............................. 32,976.35 19,192.53
Year 9.............................. 32,976.35 17,936.95
Year 10............................. 32,976.35 16,763.50
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 329,763.46 231,612.06
-----------------------------------
Annualized.................. ................ 32,976.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 20 shows the total private sector cost savings.
Table 20--Total Private Sector Cost Savings on a Nominal Basis and
Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discounted
Total private sector cost savings Nominal terms rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.............................. $36,307.26 $33,932.02
Year 2.............................. 36,307.26 31,712.17
Year 3.............................. 36,307.26 29,637.54
Year 4.............................. 36,307.26 27,698.64
Year 5.............................. 36,307.26 25,886.58
Year 6.............................. 36,307.26 24,193.06
Year 7.............................. 36,307.26 22,610.34
Year 8.............................. 36,307.26 21,131.16
Year 9.............................. 36,307.26 19,748.75
Year 10............................. 36,307.26 18,456.77
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 363,072.64 255,007.03
-----------------------------------
Annualized.................. ................ 36,307.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Coast Guard Cost Savings
Under current regulations, the COTP examines the Operations Manuals
and Emergency Manuals and amendments that are submitted by LNG and LHG
facilities, and the Operations Manuals and amendments submitted by MTR
facilities. After examining LNG and LHG documentation, the COTP finds
the document either adequate or inadequate. If the document is found
adequate, the current regulation requires
[[Page 75989]]
that ``the Captain of the Port returns-one copy to the [facility] owner
or operator marked `Examined by the Coast Guard' ''.\86\ The same
applies to MTR documentation. If the document is found to be adequate,
the current regulation requires that ``the COTP . . . return one copy
of the manual marked `Examined by the Coast Guard' ''.\87\ All these
copies are currently submitted and returned in printed format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 33 CFR 127.019(c).
\87\ 33 CFR 154.300(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings From the Option for the COTP to Return Electronic
Documents to Facility Operators if Those Documents Were Electronically
Submitted
This proposed rulemaking would permit the COTP the option of
returning these documents to the facilities in either electronic or
printed format, depending on the format in which the document was
received. If a document was received from a facility in printed format,
then it would not be returned to the facility in electronic format. As
previously stated, Coast Guard SMEs estimate that 90 percent of LNG and
LHG documents would be received in electronic format, and 75 percent
for MTR. Thus, this is same the percentage that the COTP would return
to the facilities in electronic format.
The cost savings the Coast Guard would experience from returning
electronic responses would be the shipping and handling costs saved by
not having to mail back the printed editions of the Operations Manuals
and Emergency Manuals and amendments. The Coast Guard, like the private
sector, would likely use a mailing service such as UPS or FedEx Ground
shipping. Since the same packages would be returned to the facilities,
the Coast Guard's mailing costs would likely be the same as the private
sector's. For a 0.5-inch manual, this is estimated to total $9.56, and
for a 5-page amendment, this is estimated to total $8.88.
Because labor costs differ between the Coast Guard and the private
sector, labor-handling costs do also. The type of Coast Guard personnel
expected to package documents to return to facilities would be either
E-4s or E-5s. According to the latest available Commandant Instruction,
the fully loaded hourly rate for an E-4 is $45.00 and for an E-5
$54.00.\88\ We assume that it takes the same amount of time to pack and
prepare a 0.5-inch and a 5-page amendment for shipping as it takes the
private sector: 5 minutes, rounded to the closest whole minute, for a
0.5-inch manual and 4 minutes for a 5-page amendment.89 90
We estimate labor costs at $3.60 for an E-4 and $4.32 for an E-5 to
mail a 0.5-inch manual.91 92 We estimate that it costs $3.15
for an E-4 and $3.78 for an E-5 to mail a 5-page
amendment.93 94 We take an average of the E-4 and E-5 rates,
thus deriving an estimated labor cost of $3.96 per 0.5-inch amendment
and $3.47 per 5-page amendment.\95\ Thus, the total cost to mail a 0.5-
inch manual and $12.35 to mail a 5-page amendment is $13.52. These
costs are summarized in table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Commandant Instruction 7310.1U, dated 27 February 2020,
page 2 under the ``Hourly Standard Rates for Personnel'' section.
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Mar/04/2002258826/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1U.PDF
\89\ 5/60 = 0.08 hours.
\90\ 4/60 = 0.07 hours.
\91\ .08 x $45= $3.60.
\92\ .08 x $54 = $4.32.
\93\ .07 x $45 = $3.15.
\94\ .07 x $54 = $3.78.
\95\ Both of these figures are rounded to the nearest whole
cent.
Table 21--Coast Guard Shipping and Handling Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping and Handling Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handling
Mailing costs (labor costs) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals......................................................... $9.56 $3.96 $13.52
Amendments...................................................... 8.88 3.47 12.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the documents that have been found adequate, there
is the issue of those documents that are deemed inadequate by the COTP.
The current regulations require the COTP to notify the facility in
writing.96 97 This notification usually comes in the form of
a marked-up copy of the document, showing what needs to be corrected.
This proposed rule would provide the COTP the option to respond
electronically or in print to either electronic or printed copies from
the facility operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 33 CFR 154.320(a)(1) states: ``The COTP will notify the
facility operator [of an MTR facility] in writing of any
inadequacies''.
\97\ 33 CFR 127.019(d) states: ``If the COTP finds that the
Operations Manual or the Emergency Manual does not meet this part,
the Captain of the Port will return the manual with an explanation
of why it does not meet this part [to the LNG and LHG facility].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the cost savings for the Coast Guard would be produced
from the reduced number of printed Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments returned to LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities. These
savings can be broken out into the labor costs and the shipping costs.
Table 22 shows the annual cost saving calculations for the Coast Guard.
Table 22--Coast Guard Annual Cost Savings from Shipping and Handling Foregone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected rate
Population of of electronic Shipping and
Cost savings to the coast guard documents per documents handling Annual cost
year * production costs savings
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG Manuals..................................... 18 90 $13.52 $219.02
LNG Amendments.................................. 42 90 12.35 466.83
MTR Manuals..................................... 261 75 13.52 2,646.54
MTR Amendments.................................. 442 75 12.35 4,094.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See tables 11 and 12.
[[Page 75990]]
The summary of these calculations for 10 years is in Table 23.
Table 23--Coast Guard Costs Savings on a Nominal Basis and Discounted at
7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast guard cost savings Nominal terms 7% Discounted rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1......................... $7,426.42 $6,940.58
Year 2......................... 7,426.42 6,486.52
Year 3......................... 7,426.42 6,062.17
Year 4......................... 7,426.42 5,665.58
Year 5......................... 7,426.42 5,294.93
Year 6......................... 7,426.42 4,948.54
Year 7......................... 7,426.42 4,624.80
Year 8......................... 7,426.42 4,322.24
Year 9......................... 7,426.42 4,039.48
Year 10........................ 7,426.42 3,775.21
----------------------------------------
Total...................... 74,264.19 52,160.06
----------------------------------------
Annualized............. .............. 7,426.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of Cost Savings
We show the total aggregate cost savings for both the private
sector and government, in nominal and discounted terms, in table 24.
Table 24--Total Costs Savings (Private Sector Plus Government) on a
Nominal Basis and
Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total private sector + coast
guard cost savings Nominal terms 7% Discounted rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1......................... $43,733.68 $40,872.60
Year 2......................... 43,733.68 38,198.69
Year 3......................... 43,733.68 35,699.71
Year 4......................... 43,733.68 33,364.22
Year 5......................... 43,733.68 31,181.51
Year 6......................... 43,733.68 29,141.60
Year 7......................... 43,733.68 27,235.14
Year 8......................... 43,733.68 25,453.40
Year 9......................... 43,733.68 23,788.23
Year 10........................ 43,733.68 22,231.99
----------------------------------------
Total...................... 437,336.83 307,167.09
----------------------------------------
Annualized............. .............. 43,733.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a perpetual period of analysis, we estimate the total
annualized cost savings to both industry and the Coast Guard of the
proposed rulemaking to be $29,406 in 2016 dollars, using a 7-percent
discount rate and discounted back to 2016.\98\ The anticipated year of
the rule's implementation is 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Rounded to the nearest whole dollar. We assume that the
regulation will be implemented in 2021, hence deflate the 2016
dollar terms to that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) and
Executive Order 13272 (Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking) requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess
their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and certifies that
a rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Under the RFA, we have 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.
The Coast Guard proposes to allow MTR facilities, and LNG and LHG
facilities to submit their Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and
amendments in electronic format. These facilities will experience a
cost savings. Therefore, we estimate that this proposed rule would
provide cost savings to 703 MTR facilities, and 60 LNG and LHG
facilities.
This proposed rulemaking would reduce the time and cost burden for
regulated LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities to submit Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals and amendments for the purposes of 33 CFR parts 127,
154 and 156. The proposed rulemaking would enable these facilities to
submit the required documentation electronically. This would enable
facilities to save time associated with mailing and processing printed
manuals. In addition, it would permit facilities to place electronic
copies of their manuals and amendments at their marine transfer areas.
This would result in a savings to facilities that choose this route
because they would not have to
[[Page 75991]]
print manuals and amendments and place them physically at those
locations.
Section 70011 of Title 46 of the U.S.C. authorizes the Secretary of
Homeland Security to establish procedures and measures for handling
dangerous substances, including oil and hazardous material, to prevent
damage to any structure on or in the navigable waters of the United
States. Additionally, the FWPCA, as amended and codified in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5), authorizes the President to establish procedures to prevent
discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels, onshore
facilitates, and offshore facilities. The FWPCA functions in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5) have been delegated from the President to the Secretary of
DHS by Executive Order 12777 Sec. 2(d)(2), as amended by Executive
Order 13286. The authorities in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5) and 46 U.S.C.
70011 have been delegated to the Coast Guard under section II,
paragraphs 70 and 73, of DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. This serves as the
legal basis of the proposed rulemaking. We have searched for relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap and conflict with the
proposed rule but have found none.
We examined the LNG and LHG and MTR facility populations
separately, to provide a detailed analysis. With respect to the LNG and
LHG population, as stated previously, we estimate that 54 facilities a
year would be impacted by the proposed regulation, or 45 percent of the
121 total number of LNG and LHG facilities.99 100 A search
of the MISLE database revealed a total of 85 unique owners for these
121 LNG and LHG facilities.\101\ Of these unique owners, 15 were found
to be small businesses, as defined by the SBA ``Table of Small Size
Standards''.\102\ We were unable to find employee or revenue
information for 16 entities. Entities for which data was not available
were assumed to be small entities. Assuming that the proportion of
owners is directly related to the number of impacted owners, 45 percent
of the 85 unique owners yielded a total of 38 unique owners who would
be affected by the proposed rule.\103\ We estimate total nominal cost
savings per year for LNG and LHG facilities to be $3,331 per year, as
shown in Table 18.\104\ This totals $86.66 per owner per year.\105\
There were no small LNG and LHG facilities, for which gross sales data
existed, for which costs savings exceeded 1 percent of gross revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ The discussion under the ``affected population'' section of
this NPRM should be referenced.
\100\ 54/121 = 45%.
\101\ The search of the MISLE database was conducted mid-
December 2020.
\102\ As of the latest available SBA ``Table of Size Standards''
at the time this analysis was performed. That table was effective as
of Aug. 19, 2019 and is available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
\103\ Rounded to nearest whole number. 85 x 45% = 38.25 (rounded
to 38).
\104\ Rounded to closest whole dollar.
\105\ $3,331/38 = $86.66 per impacted owner per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the MTR population, as stated previously, we
estimate that 527 facilities would be impacted per year.\106\ As we
found the total number of MTR facilities to be 2,497, the proportion of
impacted facilities is 21 percent.\107\ A search of the MISLE database
found 1,390 unique owners of all MTR facilities.\108\ We used Cochran's
Formula to reduce 1,390 to a representative sample.\109\ Applying this
formula, while assuming a 95-percent confidence interval, yields a
sample size of 302. We used this sample size on which to base our small
business analysis.\110\ Of the 302 facilities, 223 were estimated to be
small. Of the 223 facilities, 139 were small (in terms of either gross
sales or number of employees) according to the definition provided by
the SBA. With respect to the remaining 84 facilities, no sales or
employee data was available, so we assumed that these facilities were
also small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ The discussion under the ``affected population'' section
of this regulatory analysis should be referenced.
\107\ Rounded to closest whole percentage point (527/2,497 =
21.1%). This assumes that this ratio, based on historical MISLE data
over the past 10 years, remains constant over the future.
\108\ The search of the MISLE database was conducted in Mid-Dec.
2020.
\109\ Cochran's formula is defined as: n= (Z\2\xpxq)/e\2\ where
n is the sample size number that matches a particular precision
(i.e. margin of error) and confidence level. Z is the z-value (1.96
in our case, a number that matches 2 standard deviations), p is the
estimated proportion of the population which has the attribute in
question (0.5 in our case, as we are looking numbers around a
center), q = 1-p and e is the estimated margin of error (0.05, as we
are assuming a 95-percent confidence level). The use of this
equation yields a corresponding sample size of 385. However, as the
population is relatively small (in terms of statistical analysis)
1,390, we need to use a slight modification of this formula. That
modification is as follows: n = (n0)/(1+ (n0-1)/N). n0 is the sample
size from our first calculation (385) and N is the sample size
(1,390). Thus, we obtain: 385/(1 + (385-1)/1390)) = 302.
\110\ We picked the 302, from the 1,390, by assigning the 1,390
a randomly selected number between 0 and 1 using the random number
generator in Excel and then picking the first 302 facilities, from
highest to lowest, based on the number the random number generator
created for each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated number of total impacted unique MTR owners is
292.\111\ We estimate the total cost savings, as shown in table 19, to
be $32,976 per year for all MTR facilities per year.\112\ Hence, we
estimate that the projected cost savings per impacted facility would be
$112.93 per year.\113\ Assuming that the proportion of small facilities
among the 292 total impacted facilities reflects the ratio of small in
the sample derived by the application of Cochran's formula (74
percent), 216 small facilities are estimated to
exist.114 115 For the 139 small MTR facilities for which
gross sales data existed, there were no facilities for which costs
savings exceeded 1 percent of gross revenue. Based on the information
provided above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 1,390 x 21% = 291.9.
\112\ Figure rounded to closest whole dollar.
\113\ $32,976/292 = $112.93.
\114\ 223/302 = 73.8%.
\115\ 292 x 74% = 216.08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 call or email 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).
[[Page 75992]]
D. Collection of Information
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the U.S. Coast Guard to consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the
1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection
of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This action contains the proposed amendments to the existing
information collection requirements previously approved OMB collections
of information. The Coast Guard will submit these proposed information
collection amendments to OMB for its review.
Hence, the COI amendments under this proposed rule falls under the
same collection of information already required for waterfront
facilities handling LNG and LHG described in OMB Control Number 1625-
0049, and facilities transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk
described in OMB Control Number 1625-0093. This proposed rule does not
change the content of responses, nor the estimated burden of each
response, but because it changes the estimated burden of many of the
responses required in those COIs, it proposes to decrease the total
annual burden for both of these collections of information.
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
collections, 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 (LNG)
and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG).
OMB Control Number: 1625-0049.
Summary of the Collection of Information: LNG and LHGs present a
risk to the public when transferred at waterfront facilities. Title 33
CFR part 127 prescribes safety standards for the design, construction,
equipment, operations, maintenance, personnel training, and fire
protection at waterfront facilities handling LNG or LHG. The facility
operators must submit Operational Manuals and Emergency Manuals and
amendments to the Coast Guard.
Need for Information: The information in an Operations Manual is
used by the Coast Guard to ensure the facility follows proper and safe
procedures for handling LNG and LHG and to ensure facility personnel
are trained and follow proper and safe procedures for transfer
operations. The Emergency Manual is used by the Coast Guard to ensure
the facility follows proper procedures in the event of an emergency
during transfer operations. These procedures include actions in the
event of a release, fire, or other event that requires an emergency
shutdown, first aid, or emergency mooring or unmooring of a vessel.
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals are updated periodically by
amendments to ensure they are kept current to reflect changes in
procedures, equipment, personnel, and telephone number listings.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information to
monitor compliance with the rule.
Description of the Respondents: Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG
and LHG.
Number of Respondents: This proposed rule would not have any impact
on the number of respondents. Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE
database, there are currently 121 LNG and LHG facilities operating in
the United States and its territories.\116\ The proposed rule would
reduce the number of hours spent assembling manuals and amendments,
submitting them to the COTP, updating numerous copies of each manual
that is amended, and ensuring that the most recent version of the
manual with all amendments is available to the PIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ In the most current COI, the number of LNG and LNG
facilities was 108. The current figure of 121 reflects an increase
in this population; it is not due to a change in the proposed
rulemaking. The relevant COI is 1625-0049. This can be found in
Regulations.Gov (specifically under https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year for this
proposed rule would vary by participating facilities. The Coast Guard
anticipates that each new participant will submit an Operations Manual
and Emergency Manual once when the new facility becomes operational.
The operator will submit updates, in the form of amendments, to the
manual whenever there is a significant change.
The number of responses has increased since the most recently
approved COI and this proposed rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking will
lead to an increase in the number of annual responses.
The proposed rulemaking does not increase the number of annual
responses. The number of responses since the last COI, however, do
increase because the population size since that time has increased. The
most recently approved COI estimates 3,356 annual responses for all LNG
and LHG facilities.\117\ Under the current proposed rulemaking, the
annual responses are estimated to be 3,502.\118\ This difference is due
to a change in the populations as opposed to other impacts of the
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Annual responses are defined as not only the number of
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments but also
other documentation such as letters of intent and declarations of
intent. The full list of documents that constitute responses can be
found in the COI (1625-0049).
\118\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden of Response: The burden of response would decrease due to
the fact that facility operators would no longer need to print the
manuals that will be submitted to the Coast Guard, mail them to the
COTP, and place them at the marine transfer areas of the facilities
(for those manuals and amendments that will be kept at marine transfer
areas in electronic format).
In the latest available COI, using the new LNG and LHG population
of 121 instead of 108, along with the per-response burden hours in that
COI, the total burden hours for both LNG and LHG facilities, per year,
is 6,768. The hours per response for the development of an Operations
or Emergency Manual is 150 hours, and the hours per response for
Operations Manual or Emergency Manual amendments is 2 hours.\119\ The
proposed rulemaking is estimated to reduce the burden hours for
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments for facility
operators submitting their documents to the COTP and storing their
documentation at their marine transfer areas in electronic format. This
total time saved time is estimated at 60 hours per year. Thus, the
Coast Guard estimates that 60 burden hours would be eliminated per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ The relevant COI is 1625-0049. The 150- and 2-hour figures
can be seen in Regulations.Gov (specifically under https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353), in the supporting
document ``1625-0049_SS_r0_2019_calcs-sheet_App-A-to-C'', pages 2-3.
In that document, it can be seen that the total hours per response,
for both LNG and LHG facilities, is 150 hours for development of
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manual Amendments and 2 hours for
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The proposed rule would decrease
the total
[[Page 75993]]
burden by 60 hours, from 6,768 hours to 6,708.
Title: Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk.
OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.
Summary of the Collection of Information: The Operations Manual
regulations in 33 CFR 154.300 through 154.325 establish procedures for
facilities that transfer oil or hazardous materials, in bulk, to or
from a vessel with a capacity of 39.75 cubic meters (250 barrels) or
more. The facility operator must submit Operations Manuals and
associated amendments to the Coast Guard.
Need for Information: The Coast Guard uses the information in an
Operations Manual to ensure that facility personnel follow proper and
safe procedures for transferring oil or hazardous materials and to
ensure facility personnel follow proper and safe procedures for dealing
with any spills that occur during a transfer. Operations Manuals are
updated periodically by amendments to ensure they are kept current to
reflect changes in procedures, equipment, personnel, and telephone
number listings.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information to
monitor compliance with the rule.
Description of the Respondents: Facilities transferring oil or
hazardous materials in bulk.
Number of Respondents: This proposed rule would not have any impact
on the number of respondents. Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE
database, there are currently 2,497 oil and hazardous material
facilities operating in the United States and its territories. The
electronic submission opportunity in this proposed rule would reduce
the number of hours spent printing the manuals and amendments, mailing
them to the Coast Guard, updating numerous copies of each manual
following amendment, and ensuring the most recent printed version of
the manual, with all amendments, is available to the person in charge
of transfer operations.
Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year for this
proposed rule would vary by participating facilities. The Coast Guard
anticipates that each new participant will submit an Operations Manual
once when the new facility becomes operational. The operator will
submit updates to the Manual whenever there is a significant change.
Based on historical information, the Coast Guard expects facilities to
submit 261 new Operations Manuals and 442 Operations Manual amendments
per year. The number of Letters of Intent Submission are 261,
equivalent to the number of Operations Manuals. The current COI assumes
that the number of letters of intent equals the number of Operations
Manual submissions. These figures are derived from the MISLE database.
Hence, the total number of responses are 964 per year.
Burden of Response: The proposed rulemaking gives regulated
facilities the option of submitting Operations Manuals and associated
amendments to the Coast Guard, at their discretion, in either print or
electronic format. For those facilities submitting documentation in
electronic format, the burden of response would decrease due to
eliminating the need to print and mail these manuals. For facility
operators placing electronic copies of their documents at their marine
transfer areas, costs associated with printing copies and labor time
related to placing them there will be saved.
According to the latest COI, 115 hours are required to prepare an
Operations Manual; 16 hours are required to prepare an Operations
Manual amendment; and 2 hours are required to submit a Letter of
Intent.\120\ Assuming that there are 261 Operations Manual submissions,
442 Operations Manual amendments submissions, and 261 Letters of
Intent, the total annual burden hours associated with the assumptions
in that COI are 37,609.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.
\121\ The current COI states that the Letters of Intent
submissions equal the number of Operation Manual submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rulemaking would reduce the burden hours for
facilities because it will permit them to submit their documentation in
electronic format and permit them to store their documents at their
marine transfer areas in electronic format. The estimated burden hours
reduced as a result is 528 hours per year.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The proposed rule would decrease
the total burden hours by 528, from 37,609 hours to 37,081 per year.
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 revisions to the existing
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 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.
This proposed rule amends the Operations Manual and Emergency
Manual submission procedures and COTP approval process for facilities
that transfer LNG, LHG, oil, or hazardous material to or from a vessel
in bulk. These proposed changes involve procedural requirements for the
Coast Guard's own approval process, safety risk analysis, and appeal
process for a facility that transfers LNG, LHG, oil, or hazardous
material in bulk. The changes proposed in this NPRM do not conflict
with State interests. For individual States, or their political
subdivisions, any requirements for facilities to submit their
Operations or Emergency Manuals to them for review or approval would be
unaffected by this proposed rule.
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(1), Congress has expressly
authorized the Coast Guard to establish ``procedures, measures and
standards for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage and
movement on a structure of explosives or other dangerous articles and
substances, including oil or hazardous material.'' The Coast Guard
affirmatively preempts any State rules related to these procedures,
measures, and standards (See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109-
110 (2000)).
[[Page 75994]]
Therefore, because the States may not regulate within these categories,
this proposed rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
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 call or email 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).
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
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 (for example,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
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 (part d) and L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. Paragraph A3 (part d) pertains to the
promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the
development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices,
procedures that interpret or amend an existing regulation without
changing its environmental effect, and paragraph L54 pertains to
regulations which are editorial or procedural. This proposed rule
involves allowing facilities that transfer oil, hazardous materials,
LNG, or LHG in bulk to submit and maintain the facility Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals electronically or in print, and would
amend the COTP examination procedures for those documents, thus
enabling electronic communication between the facility operators and
the Coast Guard, which would reduce the time and cost associated with
mailing printed manuals. This action is consistent with the Coast
Guard's port and waterway security and marine safety missions. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 127
Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Natural gas,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
33 CFR Part 154
Alaska, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
33 CFR Part 156
Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR parts 127, 154, and 156 as follows:
PART 127--WATERFRONT FACILITIES HANDLING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS AND
LIQUEFIED HAZARDOUS GAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 127 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Amend Sec. 127.019 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e);
[[Page 75995]]
0
c. Add new paragraph (c); and
0
d. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (d) and (e).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 127.019 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Procedures for
examination.
(a) The owner or operator of an active facility must submit an
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual in printed or electronic format
to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
(b) At least 30 days before transferring LHG or LNG, the owner or
operator of a new or an inactive facility must submit an Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual in printed or electronic format to the
Captain of the Port of the zone in which the facility is located,
unless the manuals have been examined and there have been no changes
since that examination.
(c) Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals submitted after
[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] must include a
date, revision date or other identifying information generated by the
facility.
(d) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual meets Sec.
127.305 or Sec. 127.1305 and that the Emergency Manual meets Sec.
127.307 or Sec. 127.1307, the COTP will provide notice to the facility
stating each manual has been examined by the Coast Guard. This notice
will include the revision date of the manual or other identifying
information generated by the facility.
(e) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual or the Emergency
Manual does not meet this part, the COTP will notify the facility with
an explanation of why it does not meet this part.
0
3. In Sec. 127.309, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.
The operator must ensure that--
(a) LNG transfer operations are not conducted unless the person in
charge of transfer for the waterfront facility handling LNG has in the
marine transfer area a readily available printed or electronic copy of
the most recently examined Operations Manual and Emergency Manual;
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 127.1309, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 127.1309 Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.
The operator must ensure that--
(a) LHG transfer operations are not conducted unless the person in
charge of transfer for the waterfront facility handling LHG has a
printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual readily available in the marine transfer
area;
* * * * *
PART 154--FACILITIES TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN BULK
0
5. The authority citation for part 154 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5), (j)(6), and (m)(2);
46 U.S.C. 70011, 70034; sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart F is also issued
under 33 U.S.C. 2735. Vapor control recovery provisions of Subpart P
are also issued under 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2).
0
6. Amend Sec. 154.300 as follows:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a) and add paragraph
(a)(4);
0
b. In paragraphs (b) and (c), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''; and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 154.300 Operations manual: General.
(a) The facility operator of each facility to which this part
applies must submit to the COTP of the zone(s) in which the facility
operates, with the letter of intent, an Operations Manual in printed or
electronic format that:
* * * * *
(4) After [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE],
includes a date, revision date, or other identifying information
generated by the facility.
* * * * *
(d) In determining whether the manual meets the requirements of
this part and part 156 of this chapter, the COTP will consider the
products transferred and the size, complexity, and capability of the
facility.
(e) If the manual meets the requirements of this part and part 156
of this chapter, the COTP will provide notice to the facility stating
the manual has been examined by the Coast Guard as described in Sec.
154.325. The notice will include the date, revision date of the manual,
or other identifying information generated by the facility.
(f) The facility operator must ensure printed or electronic copies
of the most recently examined Operations Manual, including any
translations required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, are readily
available for each facility person in charge while conducting a
transfer operation.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 154.320 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (2), (c) introductory text, and
(c)(1) and (2);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (c)(3) and (4); and
0
c. Add paragraph (e).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 154.320 Operations manual: Amendment.
(a) Using the following procedures, the COTP may require the
facility operator to amend the operations manual if the COTP finds that
the operations manual does not meet the requirements in this
subchapter:
(1) The COTP will notify the facility operator in writing of any
inadequacies in the Operations Manual. The facility operator may submit
information, views, and arguments regarding the inadequacies
identified, and proposals for amending the Manual, in print or
electronically, within 45 days from the date of the COTP notice. After
considering all relevant material presented, the COTP will notify the
facility operator of any amendment required or adopted, or the COTP
will rescind the notice. The amendment becomes effective 60 days after
the facility operator receives the notice, unless the facility operator
petitions the Commandant to review the COTP's notice, in which case its
effective date is delayed pending a decision by the Commandant.
Petitions to the Commandant must be submitted in writing via the COTP
who issued the requirement to amend the Operations Manual.
(2) If the COTP finds that there is a condition requiring immediate
action to prevent the discharge or risk of discharge of oil or
hazardous material that makes the procedure in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section impractical or contrary to the public interest, the COTP may
issue an amendment effective on the date the facility operator receives
notice of it. In such a case, the COTP will include a brief statement
of the reasons for the findings in the notice. The owner or operator
may petition the Commandant to review the amendment, but the petition
does not delay the amendment.
(b) * * *
(1) Submitting any proposed amendment and reasons for the amendment
to the COTP in printed or electronic format not less than 30 days
before the requested effective date of the proposed amendment; or
[[Page 75996]]
(2) If an immediate amendment is needed, requesting the COTP to
examine the amendment immediately.
(c) The COTP will respond to proposed amendments submitted under
paragraph (b) of this section by:
(1) Notifying the facility operator that the amendments have been
examined by the Coast Guard; or
(2) Notifying the facility operator of any inadequacies in the
operations manual or proposed amendments, with an explanation of why
the manual or amendments do not meet the requirements of this
subchapter.
* * * * *
(e) Amendments may be submitted as page replacements or as an
entire manual. When an entire manual is submitted, the facility
operator must highlight or otherwise annotate the changes that were
made since the last version examined by the Coast Guard. A revision
date or other identifying information generated by the facility must be
included on the page replacements or amended manual.
0
8. Amend Sec. 154.325 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (g) as paragraphs (a) through
(f); and
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (a) through (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 154.325 Operations manual: Procedures for examination.
(a) Not less than 60 days prior to the first transfer operation,
the operator of a new facility must submit, with the letter of intent,
an Operations Manual in printed or electronic format to the COTP of the
zone(s) in which the facility is located.
(b) After a facility is removed from caretaker status, not less
than 30 days prior to the first transfer operation, the operator of
that facility must submit an Operations Manual in printed or electronic
format to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located, unless
the manual has been previously examined and no changes have been made
since the examination.
(c) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual meets the
requirements of this part and part 156 of this chapter, the COTP will
provide notice to the facility stating the manual has been examined by
the Coast Guard. The notice will include the date, revision date of the
manual, or other identifying information generated by the facility.
(d) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual does not meet the
requirements of this part or part 156 of this subchapter, the COTP will
notify the facility with an explanation of why the manual does not meet
the requirements of this subchapter.
* * * * *
PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS
0
9. The authority citation for part 156 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a, 3715,
70011, 70034; E.O. 11735, 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
10. Revise Sec. 156.120(t)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 156.120 Requirements for transfer.
* * * * *
(t) * * *
(2) Has readily available in the marine transfer area a printed or
electronic copy of the most recently examined facility operations
manual or vessel transfer procedures, as appropriate; and
* * * * *
Dated: November 9, 2020.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-25192 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P