prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: Under SBA’s 7(a) loan program, SBA guarantees loans made by commercial lenders to small businesses for working capital and other general business purposes  These lenders are mostly banks, but some are non-bank lenders, including small business lending companies— lenders whose lending activities are not subject to regulation by any federal or state regulatory agency, but were previously licensed by SBA and authorized to provide 7(a) loans to qualified small businesses  The guarantee assures the lender that if a borrower defaults on a loan, the lender will receive an agreed-upon portion (generally between 50 percent and 85 percent) of the outstanding balance  For a majority of 7(a) loans, SBA relies on lenders with delegated authority to approve and service 7(a) loans and to ensure that borrowers meet the program’s eligibility requirements  To be eligible for the 7(a) program, a business must be an operating for-profit small firm (according to SBA’s size standards) located in the United States and must meet the credit elsewhere requirement  Because the 7(a) program is required to serve borrowers who cannot obtain conventional credit at reasonable terms, lenders making 7(a) loans must take steps to ensure that borrowers meet the program’s credit elsewhere requirement  Because SBA relies on lenders with delegated authority to make these determinations, SBA’s oversight of these lenders is particularly important  However, we found in a 2009 report that SBA’s lack of guidance to lenders on how to document compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement was impeding the agency’s ability to oversee compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  To improve SBA’s oversight of lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement, we recommended in 2009 that SBA issue more detailed guidance to lenders on how to document their compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  As a result, SBA revised its standard operating procedure to state that each loan file must contain documentation that specifically identifies the factors in the present financing that meet the credit elsewhere test, which we believe met the spirit of our recommendation  SBA’s current credit elsewhere criteria for determining 7(a) loan eligibility include the following factors: 1  the business needs a longer maturity than the lender’s policy permits; 2  the requested loan exceeds the lender’s policy limit regarding the amount that it can lend to one customer; 3  the collateral does not meet the lender’s policy requirements; 4  the lender’s policy normally does not allow loans to new businesses or businesses in the applicant’s industry; or 5  any other factors relating to the credit which, in the lender’s opinion, cannot be overcome except for the guarantee  When the 7(a) program was first implemented, borrowers were generally required to show proof of credit denials from banks that documented, among other things, the reasons for not granting the desired credit  Similar requirements remained in effect until 1985, when SBA amended the rule to permit a lender’s certification made in its application for an SBA guarantee to be sufficient documentation  This certification requirement remained when the rule was rewritten in 1996  SBA stated that it believed requiring proof of loan denials was demoralizing to small businesses and unenforceable by SBA  SBA and lender roles vary among 7(a) program categories—including regular 7(a), the Preferred Lenders Program, and SBA Express  Under the regular (nondelegated) 7(a) program, SBA makes the loan approval decision, including the credit determination  Under the Preferred Lenders Program and SBA Express, SBA delegates to the lender the authority to make loan approval decisions, including credit determinations, without prior review by SBA  For each 7(a) program category, lenders are required to ensure that borrowers meet the credit elsewhere requirement for all 7(a) loans  The maximum loan amount under the SBA Express program is $350,000, as opposed to $5 million for other 7(a) loans  The program allows lenders to utilize, to the maximum extent possible, their own credit analyses and loan underwriting procedures  In return for the expanded authority and autonomy provided by the program, SBA Express lenders agree to accept a maximum SBA guarantee of 50 percent  Other 7(a) loans generally have a maximum guarantee of 75 percent or 85 percent, depending on the loan amount  In fiscal year 2016, 1,991 lenders approved 7(a) loans, of which 1,321 approved at least one loan with some form of delegated authority  SBA’s Office of Credit Risk Management is responsible for overseeing 7(a) lenders, including those with delegated authority  SBA created this office in fiscal year 1999 to help ensure consistent and appropriate supervision of SBA’s lending partners  The office is responsible for managing all activities regarding lender reviews; preparing written reports; evaluating new programs; and recommending changes to existing programs to assess risk potential  Generally, the office oversees SBA lenders to identify unacceptable risk profiles using its risk rating system and enforce loan program requirements  According to SBA’s standard operating procedures, one of the agency’s purposes of its monitoring and oversight activities is to promote responsible lending that supports SBA’s mission to increase access to capital for small businesses  In the federal budget, the 7(a) program is generally required to set fees that it charges to lenders and borrowers at a level to cover the estimated cost of the program associated with borrower defaults (in present value terms)  To offset some of the costs of the program, such as default costs, SBA assesses lenders two fees on each 7(a) loan  First, depending on the term of the loan, the guarantee fee must be paid by the lender within either 90 days of loan approval or 10 business days of the SBA loan number being assigned  This fee is based on the amount of the loan and the level of the guarantee, and lenders can pass the fee on to the borrower  Second, the servicing fee must be paid annually by the lender and is based on the outstanding balance of the guaranteed portion of the loan  The 7(a) program accounts for a small portion of total small business lending  According to a May 2017 report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the total debt financing available to small businesses was estimated to be $1 4 trillion  Of that amount, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimated that about 7 percent was SBA loans, including 7(a) loans  SBA and some other researchers have suggested that there may be disparities in credit access among small businesses, based on characteristics of the borrower and firm  SBA lists as a strategic objective to “ensure inclusive entrepreneurship by expanding access and opportunity to small businesses and entrepreneurs in communities where market gaps remain ” In 2007, we reported that some studies had noted disparities among some races and genders in the conventional lending market, but the studies did not offer conclusive evidence on the reasons for those differences  Much of the research we reviewed in 2007 relied on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of Small Business Finance, which was last implemented in 2003  Although this survey is no longer available, recently the 12 Federal Reserve Banks conducted the Small Business Credit Survey  In a series of reports based on the more recent survey, researchers found disparities in credit availability based on gender, the age of the firm, and minority status  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, a majority of loan dollars guaranteed under the 7(a) program went to small businesses that were new, partially or wholly owned by women, or located in a distressed area  As previously mentioned, recent studies we reviewed by the Federal Reserve Banks and other researchers suggest that certain small business borrowers—including businesses that are new or owned by women—have difficulty obtaining conventional small business loans, which may put them at a disadvantage  As shown in figure 1, almost two-thirds of loan dollars guaranteed under the 7(a) program for this period went to small businesses that were in these two categories or located in a distressed area  The remaining 37 percent of 7(a) loan dollars went to businesses that were established, solely male-owned, and not located in economically distressed areas  See appendixes II and III for additional data on 7(a) loans, such as the total volume, percentage of lending provided by year and by state, and other borrower characteristics, including SBA’s loan- and lender-level Small Business Risk Portfolio Solutions score (predictive score) information  In the following figures, we present more detailed data on 7(a) loans to small businesses based on their status as a new business; gender of ownership; location relative to economically distressed areas; and minority ownership for fiscal years 2007 through 2016  New businesses  As shown in figure 2, the percentage of 7(a) loans that went to new businesses decreased from 36 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 23 percent in fiscal year 2011 before increasing to 35 percent by 2016  Gender  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the share of the total value of approved 7(a) loans by gender of owner remained fairly consistent (see fig  3)  An average of 70 percent of the total loan value went to male- owned businesses, and the remaining 30 percent went to businesses that were majority (more than 50 percent) or partially (50 percent or less) owned by women  Economically distressed areas  SBA did not provide data on whether 7(a) loans go to businesses located in economically distressed neighborhoods  However, we used data from the American Community Survey for 2011 through 2015, the most recent version available at the time of our analysis, along with zip code information provided by SBA to determine the average poverty rate by zip code (see fig  4)  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the proportion of the total value of 7(a) loans approved that went to borrowers in economically distressed areas remained between 23 percent and 26 percent  We defined distressed areas as zip codes where at least 20 percent of the households had incomes below the national poverty line  Minority/Nonminority status of borrower  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the proportion of the total value of 7(a) loans approved that went to minority borrowers decreased overall—from 43 percent to 30 percent—with the lowest share at 24 percent in fiscal year 2010 (see fig  5)  The share of approved loan dollars that went to nonminority borrowers varied, increasing to 69 percent in fiscal year 2010 before decreasing to 56 percent in fiscal year 2016  Notably, the share of the total value of loans approved that went to borrowers whose race/ethnicity was categorized as undetermined increased from 5 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2016  This increase does not fully account for the declined share for minority borrowers  However, according to SBA officials, borrowers voluntarily provide self-reported information on race and ethnicity and therefore the associated trend data should be viewed with caution  SBA relies on on-site reviews as its primary mechanism for evaluating lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  The reviews are performed by third-party contractors with SBA staff participation and additional oversight from SBA  According to SBA’s standard operating procedures, these reviews are generally conducted every 12 to 24 months for all 7(a) lenders with outstanding balances on the SBA- guaranteed portions of their loan portfolios of $10 million or more, although SBA may conduct on-site reviews of any SBA lender at any time as it considers necessary  In fiscal year 2016, SBA conducted 40 on-site reviews of 7(a) lenders, representing approximately 35 percent of SBA’s total outstanding 7(a) loan portfolio  As part of SBA’s on-site reviews, reviewers judgmentally selected a sample of approximately 30 to 40 loan files using a risk-based approach  These loan files accounted for approximately 6 percent to 19 percent of each lender’s total gross SBA dollars in fiscal year 2016  For each lender, approximately 70 percent to 90 percent of the loan files in the sample were reviewed to evaluate compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  According to SBA’s contractors, loans that were selected for other reasons, such as issues related to liquidation, were not required to be reviewed for credit elsewhere compliance  SBA requires lenders to provide a narrative to support the credit elsewhere determination in the credit memorandum included in each loan file  SBA’s standard operating procedures state that lenders must substantiate that credit is not available elsewhere by (1) discussing the criteria that demonstrate an identifiable weakness in a borrower’s credit and (2) including the specific reasons why the borrower does not meet the lender’s conventional loan policy requirements  In keeping with SBA’s documentation requirement, third-party contractors and SBA staff who conduct on-site reviews are supposed to assess whether lenders have adequately documented the credit elsewhere criteria and provided specific reasons supporting the criteria in the credit memorandum  According to SBA’s contractors, adequate documentation of the credit elsewhere determination in the credit memorandum would include not just which of the criteria a borrower met but also a discussion of the basis or justification for the decision  For example, if a lender determined that a borrower needed a longer maturity, the lender should explain in the credit memorandum the reasons why a longer maturity was necessary  SBA’s contractors also told us that they carefully review a lender’s loan policies in preparation for on-site reviews and refer to a lender’s policies throughout the reviews  Reviewers do not attempt to verify the evidence given in support of the credit elsewhere reason beyond the information provided in the credit memorandum  Based on our review of fiscal year 2016 reports, on-site reviews can result in three levels of noncompliance response: Finding: This is the most severe result and is associated with a corrective action for the lender to remedy the issue  Observation: This is a deficiency recorded in the review’s summary but may not warrant a corrective action for the lender  Deficiency Noted: This is the lowest level of response  It is a deficiency noted as part of the review that is not included in the review’s summary and also may not warrant a corrective action  According to SBA officials, SBA’s policy has been that any noncompliance with SBA loan program requirements results in a finding  However, according to SBA officials and our review of the fiscal year 2016 on-site review reports, if a single instance of noncompliance was identified in fiscal year 2016, SBA generally would not issue a finding  Instead, SBA’s contractors said they would attempt to determine whether that instance was an inadvertent error, such as by examining additional loan files  Lenders that are subject to corrective actions are generally required to submit a response to SBA within 30 days to document how they have addressed or plan to address the identified issues  SBA subsequently asks for documentation to show that the lender has remedied the issue, and in some cases will conduct another review that usually includes an assessment of 5 to 10 additional loan files to determine whether the credit elsewhere reason has been adequately documented  According to SBA officials, SBA may also review lenders’ compliance with corrective actions from recent on-site reviews during targeted reviews (discussed below) and delegated authority renewal reviews (for lenders with delegated authority)  In addition to on-site reviews, SBA also monitors lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement through targeted reviews (performed on- or off-site)  Targeted reviews of a specific process or issue may be conducted for a variety of reasons at SBA’s discretion, including assessing a lender’s compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  In fiscal year 2016, SBA conducted 24 targeted reviews that included an examination of lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  For these reviews, SBA examined loan files for 5 judgmentally selected loans that were provided to SBA electronically, as well as copies of the credit elsewhere reasoning (among other underwriting documentation) for 10 additional recently-approved loans  SBA also conducts periodic off-site reviews that use loan- and lender- level portfolio metrics to evaluate the risk level of lenders’ 7(a) portfolios  According to agency officials, SBA also began using off-site reviews to evaluate lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement in fiscal year 2016  In that year, SBA conducted off-site reviews of 250 lenders and required these lenders to report the credit elsewhere justification for a sample of 10 loans per lender that were identified by SBA’s selection process  Lenders were not required to provide supporting documentation, and SBA did not follow up with lenders or review loan files to ensure the validity of the self-reported reasons  According to SBA, off-site reviews followed the same procedures in fiscal year 2017 as in 2016 and that the agency planned to use the same procedures for these reviews in the future  According to the agency, it also routinely evaluates and revises its review processes and procedures  In addition, SBA’s Loan Guaranty Processing Center and National Guaranty Purchase Center conduct Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act and quality control reviews at the time of loan approval and at the time of guaranty purchase, respectively  These reviews examine the credit elsewhere requirement, among other issues  Lastly, since 2014 SBA’s Office of Inspector General has also examined whether high-dollar or early-defaulted 7(a) loans were made in accordance with rules; regulations; policies; and procedures, including the credit elsewhere requirement  Our review of the on-site reviews conducted in fiscal year 2016 found that 17 of the 40 reviews—more than 40 percent—identified compliance issues with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  Of those 17 reviews, 10 reviews resulted in a Finding (all with associated corrective 3 reviews resulted in an Observation (none with associated corrective actions or requirements), and 4 reviews resulted in a Deficiency Noted (one with an associated requirement)  For all of the 17 on-site reviews that identified an instance of noncompliance, the issue was related to the lender’s documentation of the credit elsewhere criteria or justification  For example, one review found that the lender’s “regulatory practices demonstrate material noncompliance with SBA Loan Program requirements regarding documentation of the Credit Elsewhere Test ” Another review found that the lender “failed to demonstrate with adequate documentation that credit was not available elsewhere on reasonable terms and conditions ” For 2 of the 17 reviews, the issue was partly related to a discrepancy between the credit elsewhere justification used for some of the sample loan files and the lender’s own loan policy limits  With regard to SBA’s targeted reviews, 7 of 24 reviews (29 percent) conducted in fiscal year 2016 found a compliance issue with the credit elsewhere requirement  Of those 7 reviews, 6 reviews resulted in a Finding (all with associated corrective actions), 1 review resulted in an Observation (without an associated corrective no reviews resulted in a Deficiency Noted  For all of the 7 targeted reviews that identified a compliance issue, the issue was wholly related to the lender’s documentation of the credit elsewhere reason or justification  For example, 4 reviews found that for at least one loan reviewed, “the Lender failed to document justification that credit was unavailable elsewhere ” Another review found that for “three SBA Express loans and one Small Loan Advantage loan reported “other factors relating to the credit that in the lender’s opinion cannot be overcome except for the guaranty’ without specific identification of the factors ” Based on our review of on-site review reports and an interview with one reviewer, the key factors underlying lenders’ high rate of noncompliance with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement were lenders’ lack of proper internal controls and procedures and lack of awareness of the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  In fiscal year 2016, SBA’s corrective actions related to the credit elsewhere requirement required the lenders to establish or strengthen their policies; procedures; underwriting processes; or internal controls  In addition, contractors conducting the on- site reviews with whom we spoke stated that some lenders appeared to be unfamiliar with SBA’s standard operating procedures or were unclear on how to interpret them  For the 11 on-site reviews conducted in 2016 that included corrective actions, SBA generally required lenders to improve controls or procedures  For example, one lender was required to “correct its policy, modify its procedure, and amend its internal controls to ensure that its consideration and documentation of credit unavailable elsewhere identifies the specific fact(s) which are applicable to the specific loan and the determination is rendered and accurate for each individual SBA loan that it originates ” Another lender was required to “improve underwriting processes and controls to ensure that the borrower meets the [credit elsewhere] requirement” and to “document the loan file with the reasons for the determination ” Similarly, for the six targeted reviews in 2016 that included corrective actions, SBA issued a general requirement for the lender to “identify the causes for the Findings and implement corrective actions ” Based on our review of these targeted reviews, lenders generally remedied or intended to remedy the issue by amending their internal controls or procedures  For example, one lender stated that the “Credit Elsewhere test will be incorporated into the Credit Department process ” Another lender stated that it would “centralize all SBA underwriting and has developed an SBA addendum that will be utilized for all SBA-guaranteed loans ” Although some of SBA’s on-site reviews for fiscal year 2016 identified factors leading to noncompliance, they generally did not document reviewers’ assessment of lenders’ policies and practices for complying with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  SBA’s standard operating procedures state that the on-site reviewers should determine whether or not lenders’ policies and practices adhere to the requirement, but they do not require them to document their assessment of these policies and practices  Only 4 of the 40 fiscal year 2016 review reports that we examined included such an assessment  As a result, although SBA required corrective actions by the lender to address deficiencies, there usually was no record of the underlying factors that resulted in the lender’s noncompliance  Federal internal control standards state that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, including appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control  Because SBA does not require reviewers to document their assessment of lenders’ policies and practices for complying with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement, the agency does not have good information to help explain why so many lenders are not in compliance  This hinders SBA’s ability to take informed and effective actions to improve lender compliance with the requirement and ensure that the program is reaching its intended population  SBA does not routinely collect information on the criteria lenders use in their credit elsewhere justifications  As previously discussed, lenders are required to maintain documentation of borrower eligibility (including the credit elsewhere justification) in each loan file for loans approved through lenders’ delegated authority  However, SBA cannot readily aggregate information on lenders’ credit elsewhere justifications for both delegated and nondelegated loans: For delegated loans, lenders are required to certify the loan’s credit elsewhere eligibility on E-Tran, SBA’s online portal for origination of delegated and nondelegated loans  However, lenders are only required to check a box to certify that the loan file contains the required credit elsewhere justification and are not required to submit any additional information, including which of the criteria was used to make the determination  According to SBA officials, delegated loans account for loans approved by approximately 70 percent of lenders  For nondelegated loans, lenders are required to submit credit elsewhere documentation to be reviewed by SBA’s Loan Guaranty Processing Center  For these loans, which comprise loans approved by the remaining 30 percent of lenders, SBA might maintain paper records of data on borrowers’ eligibility but does not compile such data electronically and thus cannot readily aggregate the data for analysis  Instead, SBA relies on on-site reviews or lender-reported information to review lenders’ credit elsewhere justifications and collects limited data from these reviews  For its on-site reviews, SBA does not collect sample data on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria  For its off-site reviews, SBA collected sample data on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria based on 250 such reviews conducted in fiscal year 2016  For these reviews, SBA asked lenders to self-report a short description of the credit elsewhere justifications used for an SBA-selected sample of 10 loans  However, as discussed earlier, SBA did not request or examine loan files as part of these off-site reviews and did not follow up with lenders or review loan files to ensure the validity of the self- reported reasons  One reason why SBA does not routinely collect complete information on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria is that SBA’s loan origination system, E-Tran, is not equipped to record or tabulate this information  In addition, according to an SBA official, on-site reviews do not collect data on the credit elsewhere criteria because the loans reviewed are judgmentally selected and would not accurately represent the larger population  Federal internal control standards state that management should use quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  To do so, management should identify the information needed to achieve the objectives and address the risks, obtain relevant data from reliable internal and external sources in a timely manner, and process the obtained data into quality information  More robust information on lenders’ credit elsewhere justifications, including the credit elsewhere criteria, would allow SBA to evaluate patterns in lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement and, in turn, help the agency ensure compliance with the requirement  In this context, generalizable data, which can be collected through random sampling, or complete data through required reporting for every loan would allow SBA to better understand patterns in lender practices across the 7(a) program  Further, nongeneralizable data, which are available through SBA’s current off- and on-site review processes, would allow SBA to examine specific groups of lenders and could help SBA determine if it is necessary to collect additional data  SBA does not analyze the limited data it collects to help it monitor lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  According to agency officials, SBA has not performed lender-level analyses of the criteria lenders use for their credit elsewhere justifications  Additionally, SBA has not analyzed 7(a) lenders’ use of the “other factors” criterion— that is, factors not specified in the other criteria that, in the lender’s opinion, cannot be overcome except for the guarantee—for example, by collecting data on the frequency of its use or examining why lenders rely on it  While some 7(a) lenders told us they avoided relying on the “other factors” criterion because it was vague and open to interpretation, some lenders have used it when a borrower’s profile did not meet any of the other criteria  For example, one lender stated that this criterion was used for a borrower who was no longer a start-up but had experienced fluctuations in cash flow due to relocation or change in ownership  Another lender stated that the criterion was used more frequently during the 2007-2009 financial recession to extend financing to borrowers whose owners had experienced a home foreclosure but were otherwise sound  Federal internal control standards state that management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results  Analyzing data on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring procedures could help SBA determine whether there are patterns in lender practices related to the criteria that could predict lender noncompliance  For example, SBA could analyze lenders’ use of the criteria along with lender review results and other data on loan characteristics and performance to determine whether certain patterns indicate that a lender might be applying the requirement inconsistently  Additionally, such analysis could inform SBA’s selection of which lenders to review by improving its ability to identify lenders at risk of noncompliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  Better selection criteria for its lender reviews could, in turn, improve identification and remediation of such noncompliance, helping ensure that the 7(a) program serves its target population  Representatives at 8 of the 11 lenders that we contacted said they believed that SBA’s current credit elsewhere criteria are adequate in targeting small business borrowers who cannot obtain credit at reasonable terms  Representatives of these lenders also agreed that the criteria generally serve the types of small businesses that would otherwise have trouble obtaining conventional credit, such as new businesses or those with a shortage of collateral  One lender representative told us its most commonly used criterion related to the overall time in business because of the higher risk of failure  Another lender representative cited the lack of collateral as the most common criterion used  Additionally, representatives at an industry association told us that one of the most commonly used criteria was the one related to loan maturity and many small businesses seek 7(a) loans because they offer repayment terms of up to 10 years, compared to 1 to 3 years for conventional loans  Representatives of two other lenders suggested that the credit elsewhere criteria should not be overly prescriptive, which could limit lenders’ ability to make 7(a) loans to some businesses  For example, one representative said the credit elsewhere criteria should remain flexible because banks have different lending policies  In addition, representatives at three lenders indicated that they were hesitant to use the “other factors” criterion  One lender believed the requirement was open to interpretation and could be used inappropriately with lenders determining their own individual conventional loan policies  Another lender commented that the criterion was vague and rarely used by his institution, noting that SBA should provide some additional guidance on its use  Lenders consider multiple factors in determining whether to offer small businesses a conventional loan or a 7(a) loan, according to stakeholders with whom we spoke  For example, representatives at an industry association stated that a bank goes through several analyses to determine what loan product to offer the borrower  These representatives stated that the credit elsewhere requirement is embedded in the analysis a bank performs, such as whether the borrower qualifies for a loan and has a financial need for an SBA loan and whether the 7(a) program is right for that borrower  Representatives at two other lenders also stated that many small businesses have already been turned down for conventional loans before they seek a 7(a) loan  One representative noted that the “reasonable rates and terms” component of the 7(a) program was important as it allows lenders to look more broadly at a borrower’s needs  For instance, the representative explained, lenders can assess whether repayment terms are reasonable given a particular borrower’s situation and the resources the borrower will have to repay the loan  Economic conditions also affect lending policies, including whether borrowers qualify for a conventional loan, according to representatives at seven lenders with whom we spoke  For example, during the recent economic downturn, banks tightened their underwriting standards for small businesses and were less willing to lend without a government guarantee, according to one lender representative  SBA has issued revised primary operational guidance for the 7(a) program, effective January 1, 2018  As discussed previously, lenders are required to make a determination that the desired credit is not available to the applicant from nonfederal sources  Under the previous guidance, the lender had to determine that some or the entire loan was not available from nonfederal sources or the resources of the applicant business  However under the revised guidance, the scope of nonfederal sources a lender must review was further defined to include sources both related and unrelated to the applicant  The updated guidance states that lenders must consider: Nonfederal sources related to the applicant, including the liquidity of owners of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant, their spouses and minor children, and the applicant itself; or Nonfederal sources unrelated to the applicant, including conventional lenders or other sources of credit  Representatives of five lenders told us they have been determining how to interpret the new procedures with a few stating they would like additional guidance, including what information to retain in the file  Representatives of two lenders stated that there is some ambiguity in how to determine nonfederal resources and how to assess whether small business owners have too many available liquid resources to qualify for a 7(a) loan  One representative said that lenders can have different interpretations of what constitutes “available resources,” which is not specified in the new SOP  As a result, he said, there may be some confusion about how to assess family members of the borrower who have high net worths and whether the borrower should decline a family member contribution to qualify for an SBA loan  A representative of one lender stated that lenders will not know what SBA expects until loans are approved under the new procedures, default, and are then reviewed  Another lender’s representative suggested additional guidance on documentation, such as whether the bank must obtain a personal financial statement for each owner of the business  A SBA staff told us SBA has provided multiple training presentations to SBA staff, lenders, and trade associations on the statutory changes to the credit elsewhere requirements and standard operating procedure updates  These have included a presentation at a trade association conference, four monthly conference calls for SBA staff, and two conference calls for SBA lenders  SBA staff said SBA also plans to hold monthly training sessions with SBA field offices, quarterly training sessions with the industry, and at least four training sessions in 2018 at lender trade conferences  Additionally, a representative from an industry association told us it is providing industry training on SBA’s revised procedures, including the credit elsewhere liquidity requirement  SBA’s 7(a) loan program is required to serve creditworthy small business borrowers who cannot obtain credit through a conventional lender at reasonable terms, and SBA largely relies on lenders with delegated authority to make credit elsewhere determinations  However, although there is a high rate of lender noncompliance with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement, SBA does not require its reviewers to document their assessment of the policies and procedures lenders use to meet the requirement  Without better information from lender reviews on how lenders are implementing the requirement to document their credit elsewhere decisions, SBA may be limited in its ability to promote compliance with requirements and, in turn, use such information to help ensure that 7(a) loans are reaching their target population  Furthermore, SBA does not routinely collect or analyze information on the criteria used for credit elsewhere justifications to evaluate patterns in lender practices  SBA recently began collecting some information on lenders’ use of the criteria, but this information is limited, and SBA does not analyze the information that it does collect to better understand lenders’ practices  Without more robust information and analysis, SBA may be limited in its ability to understand how lenders are using the credit elsewhere criteria and whether 7(a) loans are reaching borrowers who cannot obtain credit from other sources at reasonable terms  We are making the following three recommendations to SBA  The Administrator of SBA should require reviewers to consistently document their assessments of a lender’s policies and practices  (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of SBA should use its on-site and off-site reviews to routinely collect information on lenders’ use of credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement  (Recommendation 2) The Administrator of SBA should analyze information on lenders’ use of credit elsewhere criteria obtained from its reviews to identify lenders that may be at greater risk of noncompliance and to inform its selection of lenders for further review for credit elsewhere compliance  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report for review and comment  SBA’s written comments are reprinted in appendix IV  SBA generally agreed with the recommendations  SBA also provided additional comments on certain statements in the draft report, which are summarized below with our responses  SBA noted that the draft Highlights did not discuss how credit elsewhere is determined for nondelegated loans  We have not revised the Highlights in response to this comment because our review focused on delegated lenders  In the body of the report we note that approximately 70 percent of 7(a) loans are approved under delegated authority  We also refer to SBA’s nondelegated loans in the report for additional context  According to SBA, the statement on our draft Highlights did not fully reflect its monitoring of lender compliance  SBA identified a variety of reviews it uses in addition to on-site reviews by third party contractors, which we discuss in the body of the report  We have modified the Highlights to reflect these other reviews  Also in reference to the draft Highlights, SBA stated that it provides oversight on every on-site lender review and that an SBA employee is present as a subject-matter expert on every review  We revised the Highlights by adding that SBA provides oversight to the on-site reviews conducted by third-party contractors  In response to a statement in our draft report that SBA guarantees loans to small businesses for working capital and other general business purposes, SBA commented that working capital generally is not the primary purpose for SBA-guaranteed loans  We did not revise the statement because SBA’s SOP 50 10 5 (version J) specifies that SBA’s 7(a) loan proceeds may be used for permanent working capital and revolving working capital, among other things  In relation to a footnote in our report that mentions two lender reviews for which we did not receive documentation, SBA stated that on February 15, 2018, it provided documentation to us related to the reviews and that we had confirmed its receipt  However, the text in the footnote in question refers to two targeted lender reviews from 2016 that included corrective actions  The information SBA provided to us on February 15, 2018, was related to on-site reviews conducted in 2016  As a result, we did not revise the footnote  SBA’s letter also contained technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees, agencies, and other interested parties  In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V  This report discusses (1) 7(a) lending to selected categories of small business borrowers from fiscal years 2007 through 2016; (2) how the Small Business Administration (SBA) monitors lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement; (3) the extent to which SBA evaluates trends in lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement; and (4) lenders’ views on the criteria used to determine eligibility for 7(a) loans and other issues related to the 7(a) program  For background on the 7(a) program and the credit elsewhere requirement, we reviewed the legislative history of the 7(a) program and our previous reports  We also interviewed officials from SBA’s Office of Credit Risk Management on guidance provided to 7(a) lenders  For background on constraints in the small business credit market, we reviewed recent academic literature on the characteristics of small businesses that historically have had more difficulty accessing credit  In addition, we reviewed recent studies published by the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta; Cleveland; Kansas City; and New York  To describe the population of borrowers served by the 7(a) program, we selected characteristics (such as gender, minority status, and percentage of new business) that we used in our 2007 report and that were the subject of the recent studies by Federal Reserve Banks  We obtained and analyzed SBA loan-level data to describe 7(a) loans and borrowers  Specifically, SBA provided us with 581,393 records from its administrative data systems, which contained information on all loans approved and disbursed in fiscal years 2007 through 2016  The SBA data included various types of information describing each loan, including the total gross approval amount; the amount guaranteed by SBA; the loan term; and the interest rate; delivery method; and status of the loan  The SBA data also included information on borrower characteristics: Age of business  Firms were classified as new (less than 2 years in operation) or existing  Gender  Firms were classified as 100 percent male-owned; 50 percent or greater women owned; 50 percent or less women-owned; or “unknown ” Information on gender was voluntarily provided by borrowers  Economically distressed area  We identified borrowers in economically distressed areas by matching borrower zip codes provided by SBA to those in the 2011 through 2015 American Community Survey  We defined distressed areas as zip codes where at least 20 percent of households had incomes below the national poverty line  In about 1 percent of the cases, we were unable to classify a lender because a zip code had changed or had insufficient population to report a poverty rate  We consider 1 percent of unmatched cases to be low by data reliability standards  Race/ethnicity  Borrowers were placed in one of nine categories of race/ethnicity, including an “unknown” category  We aggregated these to create minority, nonminority, and undetermined categories  The minority category included all borrowers who reported being a race/ethnicity other than white  The nonminority category included borrowers who reported being white  Information on race was voluntarily provided by borrowers  Industry  Firms were assigned a North American Industrial Classification code  These six-digit codes begin with a two-digit sector code that we used to draw more general conclusions about industries  Geographic information  The data provided the state where the borrower is located  In addition, we obtained information from SBA on loan- and lender-level Small Business Risk Portfolio Solution scores (predictive scores) provided by Dunn & Bradstreet and Fair Isaac Company, for loans approved in fiscal year 2016, the latest available  We were able to obtain predictive scores for approximately 81 percent of the loans for which SBA had provided other information  According to SBA, some loans may not have been disbursed at the time we obtained the predictive scores and, as a result, we do not have scores associated with these loans  We analyzed the information to determine the range of predictive scores and the range of average predictive scores by lender  To assess the reliability of loan-level data on borrower and loan characteristics and predictive scores we received from SBA, we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and reviewed related documentation  We also conducted electronic testing, including checks for outliers, missing data, and erroneous values  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the characteristics of borrowers who received 7(a) loans and the distribution of predictive scores  To assess how SBA monitors lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement and criteria, we reviewed SBA’s standard operating procedures and other guidance on 7(a) program regulations and lender oversight  Specifically, we reviewed SOP 50 10 5 (versions I and J) on Lender and Development Company Loan Programs, SOP 50 53(A) on Lender Supervision and Enforcement, and SOP 51 00, On-Site Lender Reviews/Examinations, as well as information and policy notices related to the credit elsewhere requirement  Additionally, we interviewed representatives including those at SBA’s Office of Capital Access and Office of Credit Risk Management on lender oversight and lender review processes  We reviewed all the on-site lender review reports (40 reviews), including corrective actions or requirements related to the credit elsewhere requirement (documentation for 11 lenders), and targeted review reports that had credit elsewhere findings (7 reviews) that SBA conducted in fiscal year 2016  We also interviewed officials and reviewed recent reports from SBA’s Office of Inspector General  To assess the extent to which SBA evaluates trends in lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement, we interviewed SBA officials and reviewed documentation for SBA’s online portal for loan origination  We also incorporated information from interviews with a nongeneralizable, nonrepresentative sample of 7(a) lenders, which we discuss below  To obtain lenders’ views on the criteria used to determine eligibility for 7(a) loans and other program-related issues, we interviewed SBA staff including from the Office of Capital Access, and representatives of the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders; American Bankers Association; Independent Community Bankers Association; and National Federation of Independent Businesses  We also interviewed 11 banks (one bank provided written responses) in order to obtain the lender perspective of credit elsewhere  Nine of the banks were selected by us using a random process that concentrated on larger lenders  These nine lenders selected by us represent about 13 percent of the loans approved and 16 percent of the dollars approved in 2016  In addition, we interviewed two additional banks that represented an industry group – one larger bank and one small bank  Although we partially selected at random, the lenders we interviewed should not be considered generalizable because of the small number  We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to June 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In this appendix, we provide information on the total amount and number of approved 7(a) loans and the top eight industry sectors receiving 7(a) loans  Data are also presented on fiscal year 2016 loan volume by state and per capita  As shown in figure 6 below, the total amount of approved 7(a) loans decreased during the period associated with the Great Recession (2007 through 2009)  From fiscal year 2009 on, the total amount of approved 7(a) loans increased until a decline in fiscal year 2012  During this timeframe, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided fee relief and higher guaranties  The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 also provided a temporary increase in Small Business Administration (SBA) Express loan limits to $1 million (instead of $350,000)  These programs have since expired  7(a) Loans by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code  Table 1 shows the largest eight industrial sectors by proportion of the total amount of 7(a) loans approved, using the NAICS code  The combined share of the top eight sectors declined slightly from 85 percent to 80 percent of the total lending from fiscal years 2007 through 2016, with an average of 82 percent  During this period, the Accommodation and Food Services sector had the largest average share of total loan amount at 17 percent, followed by the Retail Trade sector at 15 percent  Approved loan amount and per capita dollars by state  As shown in figure 7, California; Texas; Florida; Georgia; and New York received the highest total of approved loan dollars in fiscal year 2016  The average approval amount across all loans was $380,619  Georgia and Arkansas had the largest average approval amount in 2016  Also, during this period, Utah; Colorado; Georgia; California; and Washington received the highest per capita approved loan dollars  In fiscal-year 2016, creditworthiness varied widely among 7(a) program borrowers  We analyzed creditworthiness using the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Small Business Risk Portfolio Solution score (predictive score), which ranges from 70 to 300, with 300 indicating the least risky loan  According to SBA, loans with scores above 180 are considered “lower risk,” scores between 140 and 179 are considered “moderate risk,” and scores 139 and lower are considered “higher risk ” There did not appear be differences in score based on the gender of the borrower or the age of the business  While SBA relies on the Predictive Score data to identify lenders that may pose excessive risk to the SBA 7(a) portfolio, the data also provide potential insights related to lender implementation of the credit elsewhere requirement  Variation  We found that some 7(a) borrowers were much more creditworthy than others  In 2016, the only year for which we obtained data, the predictive score at origination varied widely among borrowers  In 2016, the scores of borrowers ranged from a low of 91 to a high of 246  However, most scores were between 171 and 203, and the median score was 188  Race/ethnicity  We found that there were slight differences in creditworthiness by race/ethnicity, with median scores ranging from 180 to 189 depending on the category  Specifically, loans to African Americans in 2016 had a median score of 180, and loans to Hispanics had a median score of 183  In contrast, loans to whites had a median score of 188, and loans to Asian and Pacific Islanders had a median score of 189  Lender size  We found that lenders with larger numbers of SBA loans tended to have slightly more creditworthy borrowers  The top 5 percent of lenders had a median average score of 187, whereas the bottom 75 percent of lenders had a median average score of 182 5  Among the top 5 percent of lenders (with 374 loans per lender on average, collectively representing about 70 percent of the loans approved), the average score ranged from 171 to 195  Among all lenders, the average score ranged from 116 to 233  However, because many lenders only approved one or two loans in 2016, the average may reflect very few borrowers for that lender, making it difficult to tell whether the scores reflect a real difference between lenders  In addition to the contact named above, Harry Medina (Assistant Director); Janet Fong (Analyst in Charge); Benjamin A  Bolitzer; Gita DeVaney; David S  Dornisch; Amanda D  Gallear (intern); Marc W  Molino; Jennifer W  Schwartz; and Tyler L  Spunaugle made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: The combination of growing supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and new requirements for less polluting fuels in the international maritime shipping industry has heightened interest in LNG as a maritime fuel  For decades, LNG tanker ships have been capable of burning boil-off gas from their LNG cargoes as a secondary fuel  However, using LNG as a primary fuel is a relatively new endeavor; the first LNG-powered vessel—a Norwegian ferry—began service in 2000  Several aspects of LNG use in shipping may be of congressional interest  LNG as an engine, or "bunker," fuel potentially could help the United States reduce harmful air emissions, it could create a new market for domestic natural gas, and it could create economic opportunities in domestic shipbuilding  However, U S  ports would need specialized vessels and land-based infrastructure for LNG "bunkering" (vessel refueling) as well as appropriate regulatory oversight of the associated shipping and fueling operations  The storage, delivery, and use of LNG in shipping also has safety implications  These and other aspects of LNG bunkering may become legislative or oversight issues for Congress  One bill in the 115 th Congress, the Waterway LNG Parity Act of 2017 ( S  505 ), would have imposed excise taxes on LNG used by marine vessels on inland waterways  This report discusses impending International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards limiting the maximum sulfur content in shipping fuels, the market conditions in which LNG may compete to become a common bunker fuel for vessel operators, and the current status of LNG bunkering globally and in the United States  A broader discussion of oil market implications is outside the scope of this report  The IMO is the United Nations organization that negotiates standards for international shipping  Its standards limiting sulfur emissions from ships, adopted in 2008, have led vessel operators to consider alternatives to petroleum-based fuels to power their ships  In 1973, the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)  Annex VI of the convention, which came into force in 2005, deals with air pollution from ships  The annex established limits on nitrogen oxide (NO x ) emissions and set a 4 5% limit on the allowable sulfur content in vessel fuels  In 2008, the IMO announced a timeline to reduce the maximum sulfur content in vessel fuels from 4 5% to 0 5% by January 1, 2020  Annex VI requires vessel operators to either use fuels containing less than 0 5% sulfur or install exhaust gas-cleaning systems ("scrubbers") to limit a vessel's sulfur oxide (SO x ) emissions to a level equivalent to the required sulfur limit  MARPOL is implemented in the United States through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships ()  The United States effectively ratified MARPOL Annex VI in 2008 when President Bush signed the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act ( P L  110-280 )  The act requires that the U S  Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly enforce the Annex VI emissions standards  MARPOL's Annex VI requirements are codified at 40 C F R  §1043  They apply to U S -flagged ships wherever located and to foreign-flagged ships operating in U S  waters  In addition to its global sulfur standards, MARPOL Annex VI provides for the establishment of Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), which are waters close to coastlines where more stringent emissions controls may be imposed  The North American ECA limits the sulfur content of bunker fuel to 0 1% of total fuel weight, an even lower bar than that set by the IMO 2020 standards  This standard is enforced by Coast Guard and EPA in waters up to 200 miles from shore  Currently, most ships operating in the North American ECA meet the emissions requirements by switching to low-sulfur fuels once they enter ECA waters  The European Union also has an ECA with a 0 1% limit on sulfur in bunker fuels, and the Chinese government is considering putting the same standard in place  The IMO 2020 emissions requirement applies to vessels of 400 gross tons and over, which is estimated to cover about 110,000 vessels worldwide  However, analysts indicate that many of the smaller vessels in this group already burn low-sulfur fuel  Accounting for these smaller vessels, one estimate is that about 55,000 vessels currently burn high-sulfur fuel  Ship owners have two main options for meeting the emission requirements with existing engines: burn low-sulfur conventional fuel (or biofuels) or install scrubbers to clean their exhaust gases  Alternatively, ship owners may opt to install new LNG-fueled engines to comply with the IMO standard  The simplest option for vessel owners to comply with the IMO sulfur standards, and the one that appears most popular, is switching to low-sulfur fuel oils or distillate fuels  Although switching to low-sulfur fuels would increase fuel costs compared to conventional, high-sulfur fuels, it would require little or no upfront capital cost and would allow ocean carriers to use existing infrastructure to bunker ships at ports  Anticipating widespread adoption of this approach, many analysts predict that the implementation of the IMO 2020 regulations will drive up demand for low-sulfur fuel and, therefore, significantly increase its price above current levels  Such a trend could also reduce demand for high-sulfur fuels, increasing the price spread between low- and high-sulfur bunkers fuels  Switching to lower-sulfur fuel could increase fuel cost across the industry by up to $60 billion in 2020 for full compliance with the IMO standards  Moreover, while it may allow vessels to meet the existing IMO sulfur standards, low-sulfur fuel does not necessarily support compliance with potential future IMO emissions standards, especially with respect to greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) discussed later in this report  Scrubbers are systems which remove sulfur from a vessel's engine exhaust emissions  A ship with a scrubber would be capable of meeting the IMO 2020 standard while using conventional high-sulfur fuel  Retrofitting a scrubber on an existing engine can cost several million dollars, however, before factoring in the lost revenue from taking the ship out of service for a month for the installation  Therefore, while using a scrubber will allow a ship to continue using (currently) cheaper high-sulfur fuel, it may take years to recover the initial investment  For example, one industry study estimates that, in the case of a typical tanker, a scrubber installation could cost $4 2 million with a payback time of approximately 4 8 years  Furthermore, scrubbers installed to capture sulfur emissions might have to be further refitted or replaced to comply with any future IMO standards for GHG emissions  The rate of scrubber adoption could affect the financial impacts of installing them in terms of fuel costs  Scrubbers ultimately offset some or all of their initial costs because they allow vessel operators to continue using relatively inexpensive high-sulfur fuel  However, the return on investment for scrubbers depends on the relative prices of high- and low-sulfur bunker fuels  The demand—and therefore, prices—for low-sulfur and high-sulfur fuels will be affected by how many vessels use the respective fuels under the IMO standards that take effect in 2020  For example, limited scrubber adoption could result in more vessels demanding more low-sulfur fuel oil, creating upward pressure on low-sulfur fuel prices  Under such a scenario, scrubbers would provide greater fuel cost savings for vessels that installed them  Alternatively, high-sulfur fuel could become more costly due to refinery production cutbacks (because shippers will not be allowed to burn it without scrubbers)  In this case, the economic benefits of scrubbers would be diminished  Given the uncertain fuel supply and demand dynamics, it is difficult for vessel operators to know how big the market distortions from scrubber installation could be or how many other operators may choose to install scrubbers  As of September 2018, there were approximately 660 ships retrofitted with scrubbers and over 600 ships under construction with plans to install scrubbers  By 2020, projecting additional construction orders, some analysts predict about 2,000 vessels could have scrubbers installed  However, even with higher demand for the technology, the ability of vessel owners to install scrubbers is constrained; analysts estimate that current maximum capacity for installing scrubbers is be between 300 to 500 ships per year  Another option for ship owners to comply with the IMO 2020 sulfur standards is to switch to engines that burn LNG as a bunker fuel  LNG-fueled vessels emit only trace amounts of sulfur oxides in their exhaust gases—well below even the 0 1% fuel-equivalent threshold in some of the ECA zones—so they would be fully compliant with the IMO standards  As a secondary benefit, using LNG as an engine fuel also would reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions relative to both high- and low-sulfur marine fuel oils  Furthermore, LNG vessels have the potential to emit less CO 2 than vessels running on conventional, petroleum-based fuels  However, LNG vessels would have the potential to result in more fugitive emissions of methane, another GHG, because methane is the primary component of natural gas, further discussed below  Installing an LNG-fueled engine can add around $5 million to the cost of a new ship  Retrofitting existing ships appears to be less desirable because of the extra space required for the larger fuel tanks (new ships can be designed with the larger fuel tanks)  The costs of retraining crews to work with LNG engines could also factor into a vessel operator's decision about switching to LNG  However, apart from their lower emissions, LNG-fueled engines may offset their capital costs with fuel cost advantages over engines burning petroleum-derived fuels  These savings would depend on the price spread between natural gas and fuel oil—which has been volatile in recent years  The likelihood that switching to LNG will produce long-term fuel costs savings relative to conventional fuels is, therefore, a critical consideration for many vessel owners  The 1920 Merchant Marine Act (known colloquially as the Jones Act) requires that vessels engaged in U S  domestic transport be built domestically  Many newly built domestic ships receive a federal loan guarantee under the Maritime Administration's so-called "Title XI" program  In 2014, the program was modified to include the use of "alternative energy technologies" to power ships as part of the relevant criteria in evaluating a loan application  The Maritime Administration counts LNG-fueled engines as an "alternative energy technology" and may be more likely to approve loan applications for ships with LNG-capable engines  Since the North American ECA was established in 2015, Jones Act coastal ship operators have taken steps to transition their fleets to use cleaner burning fuels, including LNG  The three Jones Act operators that ship dry goods to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have taken delivery or have ordered LNG-fueled and LNG-capable vessels from U S  shipyards in Philadelphia, PA, and Brownsville, TX  Harvey Gulf International has put into service five LNG-powered offshore supply vessels that service offshore oil rigs  Some Jones Act tanker operators that have recently built or ordered vessels have chosen to install LNG-ready engines while other operators have chosen to install scrubbers on their existing fleet  Ship engines and scrubbers for the Jones Act fleet do not have to be manufactured in the United States because they are not considered an integral part of the hull or superstructure of a ship  Seagoing barges, known as articulated tug barges, are also a significant portion of the domestic coastal fleet, especially for moving liquid cargoes  However, these vessels traditionally have burned lower-sulfur fuels and thus the ECA has not prompted fleet conversions  IMO fuel requirements do not apply to river barges operating on the nation's inland waterway system, although this fleet potentially could be a market for LNG as fuel  Bunkering vessels (small tankers with hoses for refueling ships) in U S  waters must also be Jones Act compliant  Barges are the predominant method for bunkering ships in U S  ports  An LNG bunkering vessel for the Port of Jacksonville—the first Jones Act-compliant LNG bunkering vessel to enter service in the United States—was built in 2017 by Conrad Shipyards in Orange, TX  Recent energy sector trends suggest that LNG may be cheaper in the long-run than petroleum-based, low-sulfur fuels  However, these price movements are correlated to some extent  Many existing long-term LNG contracts link LNG prices to oil prices (although such contract terms are on the decline), even in the spot market  Starting in 2008, the advent of shale natural gas production dramatically decreased natural gas prices in the United States  Natural gas spot prices in the United States at the Henry Hub—the largest U S  trading hub for natural gas—averaged around $3/MMBtu (million British Thermal Units) in 2018, about a quarter of the peak in average price a decade before, just prior to the shale gas boom ( Figure 1 )  Liquefying natural gas into LNG adds around $2/MMBtu to the production cost  Including additional producer charges and service costs would bring the total cost of LNG available at a U S  port (based on the 2018 average price in Figure 1 ) to approximately $6/MMBtu  Shipping of LNG from the United States to Asia or Europe adds from $1 to $2/MMBtu, so, based on the 2018 average cost in Figure 1 , LNG delivered to a port overseas would cost on the order of $7 to $8/MMbtu under long-term contracts, depending upon timing and location  Higher or lower prices could occur for specific long-term contracts and in the LNG spot market (i e , for individual cargoes), based on the location and the supply and demand balance at the time  In general, the U S  market will have the lowest-priced LNG  Northern Asia will have the highest LNG prices due to the region's comparative lack of pipeline gas supplies and its distance from LNG suppliers  Figure 2 compares LNG spot market prices in the Japan LNG market—the highest-priced LNG market—to spot prices for two common petroleum-based bunker fuels, low-sulfur gas oil and high-sulfur fuel oil  As the figure shows, over the last five years, Japan LNG generally has been cheaper than low-sulfur fuel and more expensive than high-sulfur fuel on an energy-equivalent basis (i e , per MMbtu)  However, Japan LNG and high-sulfur fuel prices converged in 2018  As the figure shows, spot prices for LNG deliveries to the Japan market fell below $6/MMBtu in 2016 from a high above $16/MMBtu in 2013  Likewise, low-sulfur gas oil prices have doubled, and high-sulfur fuel oil prices have tripled, since 2016  The volatility of the bunker fuel markets and the global LNG market lead to considerable unpredictability about the relative prices among fuels going forward  LNG may become increasingly price-competitive versus low-sulfur fuel as the 2020 IMO sulfur standards take effect  As discussed above, many analysts predict prices for low-sulfur gas oil, which are already higher than those for high-sulfur fuel oil, to increase significantly after 2020 due to a standards-driven rise in demand  Although fuel prices as shown in Figure 2 indicate favorable economics for LNG versus low-sulfur fuel, if prices for high-sulfur fuel oils collapse as some expect after the 2020 IMO regulations enter into force, it is possible that LNG could lose its price advantage over residual fuel oils  Likewise, the price spread between low-sulfur gasoil and high-sulfur fuel oil would increase, incentivizing more carriers to install scrubbers to capitalize on the savings in fuel costs by continuing to burn high-sulfur fuel  An additional complication is the variability of LNG prices by region  Many shipping lines are global operators seeking low-priced fuel worldwide, but unlike the global oil market, natural gas markets are regional  Because the price of LNG can vary significantly by region, the relative economics of LNG versus other bunker fuels would also vary by region  Another uncertainty in the market for LNG bunkering is the discrepancy between the spot price for traded LNG and the price for LNG sold as bunker fuel in ports  Added costs associated with marketing, storing and transporting LNG in bunkering operations (discussed below) would likely require ports to charge a rate for LNG bunker fuel above spot market prices  These additional overhead costs are likely to vary among ports  Before factoring in any effect of IMO standards on fuel prices, and assuming a favorable LNG-fuel oil price spread, it still could take years for the savings generated by using LNG to pay back the capital costs of switching fuels  Through May 2018, there were 122 LNG-powered vessels in operation and another 135 ordered or under construction  Many of the first LNG vessels delivered and ordered were Norwegian-flagged vessels, as the Norwegian government has subsidized LNG-fueled vessels with a "NO x Fund " The fund provides LNG-operated ships with an exemption from the country's tax on NO x emissions  As an alternative to committing to LNG as a fuel, some vessel owners may hedge their bets by opting to install "LNG-ready" engines, which can burn low-sulfur fuel oil currently, but are designed to make future LNG conversion easier  The number of LNG ships that may be in operation by 2030 is difficult to predict  First, as noted above, growth in LNG powered vessels is likely to be driven primarily by new builds rather than retrofits  However, the shipping industry has experienced nearly a decade of vessel overcapacity and slow growth  Weak growth in the shipping industry could result in slower growth in vessel orders overall and, therefore, fewer orders for LNG-powered vessels  Of new vessels ordered, or set to be delivered, in 2018 or after, 13 5% (by tonnage) are LNG-fueled—up from 1 4% in 2010  If this trend continues, demand for LNG from the shipping industry could still be relatively high, even if overall growth in the shipping industry remains slow  Because LNG bunkering infrastructure among global ports is currently limited, vessels that use large amounts of fuel and travel predictable routes—along which LNG is available—are the most suitable for LNG fuel  For this reason, cruise ships, vehicle ferries, and container ships initially may be the most likely vessel types to adopt LNG as bunker fuel  Order books have reflected this assessment: one quarter of all cruise ships on order by tonnage at the end of 2017 were LNG-powered  Likewise, a major container ship line, CMA CGM, recently announced that it was ordering nine extra-large container ships powered by LNG  The carrier stated that the fuel tanks will displace space for "just a few containers" and said it intends to refuel these ships just once on their round trip voyages between Asia and Europe  Conversely, LNG fuel adoption may be less likely for oil tankers  Half the global oil tanker fleet operates on the shipping spot market (also known as the "tramp" market), meaning that ship owners enter into contracts with cargo owners only for a single voyage  In this kind of trade, many oil tankers lack a consistent route  Having to limit spot contracts only to ports that may bunker LNG could reduce the arbitrage opportunities of tankers  Dry bulk cargo vessels (carrying grain, coal, and other commodities) also typically operate in the tramp market  LNG-powered vessels have lower direct exhaust emissions than comparable vessels using petroleum-derived fuels  However, the lifecycle—or "well-to-wake"—GHG emissions (especially of methane) and of volatile organic compound emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction complicates the comparison  One study in 2015 concluded, "performing a ['well-to-wake'] GHG study on LNG used as a marine fuel is more complex than previously thought  Further studies are needed     to investigate this subject " A 2016 study found that the relative GHG emissions benefits of LNG versus conventional fuel oil on a "well-to-wake" basis was highly dependent upon fugitive methane emissions in the LNG supply chain  A 2017 study funded by NGVA Europe, an association which promotes the use of natural gas in vehicles and ships, concluded that LNG as a bunker fuel provides a 21% well-to-wake reduction in GHG emissions compared to convention fuel oil  Evaluating such studies is beyond the scope of this report, although they indicate uncertainty about environmental benefits of LNG fuel, which may require further examination  Despite concerns over lifecycle emissions from the natural gas supply chain, in the short term, ships that pair LNG engines with newer vessel designs could reduce onboard GHG emissions  However, whether these GHG emission reductions would be sufficient to meet the future standards could become another issue for ship owners  The IMO has set a provisional goal of reducing GHG emissions from ships by 50% by 2050  Depending upon the state of engine technology, LNG-fueled ships might become less viable if GHG limits were to be established well before 2050  Concerns about such GHG limits might lead to a decrease in orders of LNG-powered ships over time  Commercial vessels have a typical lifespan of over 20 years, so firms ordering new ships have to take into account compliance with potential standards issued decades in the future  If renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, become more available and cheaper in the coming decades, renewable fuel-powered ships may take over part of the market that LNG-powered ships could occupy  A key requirement for ocean carriers to adopt LNG as an engine fuel is the availability of LNG bunkering facilities  Because LNG is extremely cold (-260 °F) and volatile, LNG bunkering requires specialized infrastructure for supply, storage, and fuel delivery to vessels  Depending upon the specific circumstances, LNG bunkering could require transporting LNG to a port from an offsite liquefaction facility for temporary storage at the port, or building an LNG liquefaction terminal on site  Alternatively, LNG could be delivered from offsite facilities directly to vessels in port via truck or supply vessel ( Figure 3 )  Truck-to-vessel LNG bunkering, in particular, provides some fueling capabilities without large upfront capital investments  LNG tanker trucks could also bring LNG to a storage tank built on site at the port, which could then bunker the LNG to arriving ships via pipeline  Supplying LNG using tanker trucks in this way may face capacity limitations due to truck size, road limitations, or other logistical constraints, but it has been demonstrated as a viable approach to LNG bunkering at smaller scales  The predominant method of bunkering today with high-sulfur fuel is vessel to vessel, either by a tank barge or smaller tanker  The type of infrastructure needed to temporarily store (if needed) and deliver LNG within a given port would depend on the size and location of the port, as well as the types of vessels expected to bunker LNG  Truck to ship bunkering is best suited for supporting smaller and mid-sized vessels, such as ferries or offshore supply vessels (OSVs) that support offshore oil platforms  Liquefaction facilities built on site can provide the greatest capacity of any LNG bunkering option, for example, to provide fuel for large vessels in transoceanic trade  However, constructing small-scale liquefaction facilities to produce and deliver LNG on site requires considerable planning and significant capital investment, in one case on the order of $70 million for a mid-sized port  Each LNG bunkering option in Figure 3 may be a viable means to begin LNG bunkering service in a given port  However, ports may face practical constraints as bunkering increases in scale  For example, a container port of significant size typically has multiple terminals, so even with an on-site liquefaction facility, it may need additional infrastructure or supply vessels for moving LNG to other port locations where a cargo ship might be berthed  There may also be port capacity and timing constraints upon the movement of LNG bunkering barges trying to refuel multiple large vessels in various locations around a crowded port  To date, the LNG bunkering operations already in place or in development are comparatively small, but scale constraints could become a factor as LNG bunkering grows and might require additional bunkering-related port investments  Early adoption of LNG bunkering occurred in Europe, where the first sulfur ECAs were created in 2006 and 2007  Through Directive 2014/94/EU, the European Union requires that a core network of marine ports be able to provide LNG bunkering by December 2025 and that a core network of inland ports provide LNG bunkering by 2030  This mandate has been promoted, in part, with European Commission funds to support LNG bunkering infrastructure development  In addition, the European Maritime Safety Agency published regulatory guidance for LNG bunkering in 2018  Over 40 European coastal ports have LNG bunkering capability currently in operation—primarily at locations on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and in Spain, France, and Turkey  These locations include major port cities such as Rotterdam, Barcelona, Marseilles, and London  Another 50 LNG bunkering facilities at European ports are in development  LNG bunkering is also advancing in Asia, led by Singapore, the world's largest bunkering port  Singapore has agreed to provide $4 5 million to subsidize the construction of two LNG bunkering vessels  The Port of Singapore plans to source imported LNG at the adjacent Jurong Island LNG terminal, loading it into the bunkering vessels for ship-to-ship fueling of vessels in port  Singapore also has signed a memorandum of understanding with 10 other partners—including a Japanese Ministry and the Chinese Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan—to create a focus group aimed at promoting the adoption of LNG bunkering at ports around the world  In Japan, one consortium is implementing plans to begin vessel-to-vessel LNG bunkering at the Port of Keihin in Tokyo Bay by 2020

ground_truth: SBA's 7(a) program is required to serve creditworthy small business borrowers who cannot obtain credit through a conventional lender at reasonable terms. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 includes a provision for GAO to review the 7(a) program. This report discusses, among other things, (1) how SBA monitors lenders' compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement, (2) the extent to which SBA evaluates trends in lender credit elsewhere practices, and (3) lenders' views on the credit elsewhere criteria for 7(a) loans. GAO analyzed SBA data on 7(a) loans approved for fiscal years 2007–2016, the latest available, and reviewed literature on small business lending; reviewed standard operating procedures, other guidance, and findings from SBA reviews performed in fiscal year 2016; and interviewed lender associations and a nonrepresentative sample of 7(a) lenders selected that concentrated on larger lenders. For its 7(a) loan program, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has largely delegated authority to lenders to make 7(a) loan determinations for those borrowers who cannot obtain conventional credit at reasonable terms elsewhere. To monitor lender compliance with the “credit elsewhere” requirement SBA primarily uses on-site reviews conducted by third-party contractors with SBA participation and oversight, and other reviews. According to SBA guidance, lenders making 7(a) loans must take steps to ensure and document that borrowers meet the program's credit elsewhere requirement. However, GAO noted a number of concerns with SBA's monitoring efforts. Specifically, GAO found the following: Over 40 percent (17 of 40) of the on-site lender reviews performed in fiscal year 2016 identified lender noncompliance with the requirement. On-site reviewers identified several factors, such as weakness in lenders' internal control processes that were the cause for lender noncompliance. Most on-site reviewers did not document their assessment of lenders' policies or procedures, because SBA does not require them to do so. As a result SBA does not have information that could help explain the high noncompliance rate. Federal internal control standards state that management should design control activities, including appropriate documentation, and use quality information to achieve the entity's objectives. Without better information on lenders' procedures for complying with the documentation requirement, SBA may be limited in its ability to promote compliance with requirements designed to help ensure that the 7(a) program reaches its target population. SBA does not routinely collect or analyze information on the criteria used by lenders for credit elsewhere justifications. SBA recently began collecting some information on lenders' use of the criteria, but this information is limited, and SBA does not analyze the information that it does collect to better understand lenders' practices. Federal internal control standards state that management should use quality information to achieve the entity's objectives. Without more robust information and analysis, SBA may be limited in its ability to understand how lenders are using the credit elsewhere criteria and identify patterns of use by certain lenders that place them at a higher risk of not reaching borrowers who cannot obtain credit from other sources at reasonable terms. In general, representatives from 8 of 11 lenders that GAO interviewed stated that SBA's credit elsewhere criteria are adequate for determining small business eligibility for the 7(a) program. These criteria help them target their lending to small businesses that would otherwise have difficulty obtaining conventional credit because they are often new businesses or have a shortage of collateral. However, they also said that other factors—such as lender policies and economic conditions—can affect their decisions to offer 7(a) loans. In January 2018, SBA issued revised guidance for the 7(a) program and has provided training on this new guidance to lenders and trade associations. Lenders told GAO they are still in the process of understanding the new requirements. GAO recommends that SBA (1) require its on-site reviewers to document their assessment of lenders' policies and procedures related to the credit elsewhere documentation requirement, (2) collect information on lenders' use of credit elsewhere criteria, and (3) analyze that information to identify trends. SBA generally agreed with the recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  Japan's NYK line, a large ship owner, recently announced that it had reached an agreement with three Japanese utilities to add LNG bunkering to ports in Western Japan  Asian countries, together with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, currently have around 10 coastal ports offering LNG bunkering, with another 15 projects in development  Some LNG bunkering operations in Europe and Asia are associated with existing LNG marine terminals, which already have LNG storage and port infrastructure in place  However, many smaller operations—including most of the projects in development—employ trucking, dedicated bunkering vessels, on-site liquefaction, and other means to extend LNG availability beyond the ports with major LNG terminals  LNG bunkering is not so advanced in South America, although with nine operating LNG marine terminals (one for export), and another six in development, South America also could support significant LNG bunkering operations in the near future  LNG bunkering in the United States currently takes place in two locations—Jacksonville, FL, and Port Fourchon, LA—with a third bunkering facility under development in Tacoma, WA  The LNG facilities in these ports serve the relatively small U S -flag domestic market  Bunkering of LNG-fueled cruise ships also is planned for Port Canaveral, FL  However, ports in North America have significant potential to expand the nation's LNG bunkering capability  Jacksonville is the largest LNG bunkering operation at a U S  port  One bunkering facility at the port, developed by JAX LNG, initially began truck-to-ship refueling operations in 2016 for two LNG-capable container ships  (The LNG is sourced from a liquefaction plant in Macon, GA  ) In August 2018, upon delivery of the Clean Jacksonville bunker barge, the facility began to replace truck-to-ship bunkering with ship-to-ship bunkering  In the future, the barge plans to source LNG from a new, small-scale liquefaction plant which JAX LNG is currently constructing at the port  A second facility at Jacksonville's port, operated by Eagle LNG, provides LNG bunkering sourced from a liquefaction plant in West Jacksonville  Eagle LNG also is constructing an on-site liquefaction and vessel bunkering facility in another part of the port, expected to begin service in 2019  Taken together, the JAX LNG and Eagle LNG facilities is expected to establish Jacksonville as a significant LNG-bunkering location with the capability to serve not only the domestic fleet but larger international vessels as well  In 2015, Harvey Gulf International Marine (Harvey) began LNG bunkering operations in the Gulf of Mexico to fuel its small fleet of LNG-powered offshore supply vessels serving offshore oil rigs  Harvey has since constructed a $25 million facility at its existing terminal in Port Fourchon to store and bunker LNG sourced from liquefaction plants in Alabama and Texas  The facility can provide truck-to-ship bunkering services for LNG-fueled offshore supply vessels, tank barges, and other vessels  A Harvey subsidiary has ordered two LNG bunkering barges to enable ship-to-ship fueling in the future  Puget Sound Energy has proposed an LNG liquefaction and bunkering facility at the Port of Tacoma, WA  Vessels traveling between Washington and Alaska typically spend the entire journey within the 200-mile North America ECA  Consequently, vessel owners operating along these routes have been interested in LNG as bunker fuel  TOTE Maritime, for example, a ship owner involved in trade between Alaska and the lower 48 states, has begun the process of retrofitting the engines of two of its container ships to be LNG-compatible  The proposed Tacoma LNG facility would be capable of producing up to 500,000 gallons of LNG per day and would include an 8 million gallon storage tank  The facility would serve the dual purposes of providing fuel for LNG-powered vessels and providing peak-period natural gas supplies for the local gas utility system  Its total construction cost reportedly is expected to be $310 million  Community and environmental concerns have slowed the progress of the proposal, which is still under regulatory review  Puget Sound Energy originally planned to put the LNG facility into service in late 2019; however, permitting issues appear likely to delay its opening until 2020 or later—if it is eventually approved  Q-LNG Transport, a company 30% owned by Harvey, has placed orders for two LNG bunkering barges to provide ship-to-ship LNG fueling as well as "ship-to-shore transfers to small scale marine distribution infrastructure in the U S  Gulf of Mexico and abroad " Q-LNG's first barge initially is expected to provide fuel to new LNG-fueled cruise ships based in Port Canaveral (and, potentially, Miami), while service from its second barge is still uncommitted  Initial plans are for the LNG to be sourced from the Elba Island LNG import/export terminal near Savannah, GA—approximately 230 nautical miles away—although the company may seek to develop an on-site LNG storage facility in the future  As noted above, U S  LNG bunkering activities thus far have been limited to a handful of vessels in domestic trade and tourism  LNG bunkering for the much larger fleet of foreign-flag ships carrying U S  imports and exports is still to be developed  As in Europe and Asia, domestic ports located near major LNG import or export terminals may serve as anchors for expanded LNG bunkering operations  Figure 4 shows existing LNG import and export terminals in North America  LNG can be liquefied from pipeline natural gas (or imported natural gas) and stored in large quantities at these facilities  The LNG can then be bunkered on site or transported to bunkering facilities elsewhere in the region by truck, rail, or barge  As discussed above, the distance between Port Canaveral and Elba Island in Q-LNG's bunker sourcing plan is 230 nautical miles  Taking this distance as a measure of how far away LNG can be sourced and barged economically, it is possible to extrapolate which U S  ports are within reach of a potential supply of LNG for vessel bunkering  Table 1 lists the top 20 U S  container shipment ports in the United States and their proximity to existing LNG import/export terminals  Of these top 20 ports, 12 are less than 230 nautical miles from an operating LNG terminal  Distances between LNG terminals and the other East Coast ports are not much greater, suggesting that LNG for vessel bunkering could be within reach of every U S  port along the Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico  On the West Coast, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach—the two largest U S  ports—are relatively close to the Costa Azul LNG import terminal in Ensenada, MX  Seattle and Tacoma are far from Ensenada, but would be served by the proposed Tacoma LNG bunkering project, if constructed  LNG bunkering for Seattle and Tacoma alternatively could be sourced from an existing LNG port facility around 100 nautical miles north in Vancouver, BC, which is expanding to provide LNG bunkering services to international carriers  Alaska's existing LNG export terminal currently is inactive, but potentially could supply LNG bunker fuel in the Pacific Northwest as well  Although existing LNG import or export terminals in North America could supply LNG for regional bunkering operations, such activities would require additional investment for infrastructure such as LNG transfer facilities and bunker barges  CRS is not aware of any public announcements among the LNG terminals above to develop bunkering operations  However, at least one LNG terminal owner, Cheniere Energy, which operates LNG terminals in Louisiana and Texas, identifies vessel bunkering as one source of future LNG demand growth worldwide  The IMO adopted safety standards for ships using natural gas as a bunker fuel in 2015  The standards, which took effect in 2017, apply to all new ships and conversions of ships (except LNG tankers, which have their own standards)  The IMO standards address engine design, LNG storage tanks, distribution systems, and electrical systems  They also establish new training requirements for crews handling LNG and other low flashpoint fuels  As is the case for the sulfur standards, the IMO LNG safety standards apply to all IMO member nations, including the United States  In addition, a number of U S  federal agencies, especially the Coast Guard and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, have jurisdiction over specific aspects of domestic LNG storage infrastructure and bunkering operations  The Coast Guard has the most prominent role in LNG bunkering, given its general authority over port operations and waterborne shipping  In 2015, the Coast Guard issued two guidelines for the handling of LNG fuel and for waterfront facilities conducting bunkering operations  In 2017, the Coast Guard issued additional guidelines to Captains of the Port, the local Coast Guard officials responsible for port areas, for conducting safe LNG bunkering simultaneously with other port operations  The guidelines advise on quantitative risk assessment of facilities bunkering LNG, which allows Captains of the Port to assess the risks posed to crews and facilities  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plays a role in LNG bunkering due to its jurisdiction over the siting of LNG import and export terminals under the Natural Gas Act of 1938  Specifically, FERC asserts approval authority over the place of entry and exit, siting, construction, and operation of new LNG terminals as well as modifications or extensions of existing LNG terminals  Notwithstanding this siting authority, FERC reportedly does not intend to assert jurisdiction over the permitting of LNG bunkering facilities, but it may require amendment of permits it has issued for LNG import or export terminals to account for bunkering operations added afterwards  In addition to the Coast Guard and FERC, other federal agencies may have jurisdiction over specific aspects of LNG bunkering operations in U S  ports under a range of statutory authorities  For example, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation regulates the safety of natural gas pipelines and certain associated LNG storage facilities (e g , peak-shaving plants)  LNG facilities also may need to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals  Other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U S  Army Corps of Engineers, and the Transportation Security Administration, may regulate other aspects of LNG bunkering projects  CRS is not aware of new regulations to date among these agencies specifically addressing LNG bunkering  World production of LNG has been rising rapidly over the last few years, driven by growth in the natural gas sector in new regions—especially Australia and the United States  According to one industry analysis ( Figure 5 ), global LNG supply is expected to increase from 300 to 400 million metric tons per annum (MMtpa) from 2017 to 2021 based on new LNG liquefaction projects already operating or under development  An additional 150 MMtpa appears likely to come online after that  Collectively, LNG supply from these new liquefaction projects could exceed projections of demand, which would put downward pressure on LNG prices  While increases in the global supply of LNG do not necessarily translate directly into an increase in LNG available for bunkering, such increases could provide options for LNG bunkering in more ports  Estimating potential demand for LNG in the maritime sector is complicated and uncertain  One study of future LNG demand for bunkering, specifically, projects that LNG-powered vessels in operation and under construction as of June 2018 will require between 1 2 and 3 0 MMt of LNG per year  The study's review of several LNG consumption forecasts in the maritime sector shows a consensus projection between 20 to 30 MMt per year by 2030  This level of demand growth implies an increase in LNG-powered vessel construction from the current rate of around 120 ships per year to between 400 and 600 new builds per year  If these levels were reached, they could create a significant new market for LNG suppliers  Assuming a Henry Hub spot market price of $4/MMBtu in 2030, the annual market for LNG in shipping could be worth $2 9 billion to $5 8 billion, before accounting for liquefaction and transportation charges  Some studies have projected the LNG bunkering market to be even larger and to grow more quickly  However, key variables—such as the prices of Henry Hub natural gas and crude oil, the number of new vessel orders, and the future costs of emissions technology—are notoriously hard to predict with accuracy  Thus, it is not assured that natural gas consumption in the maritime sector will absorb more than a small amount of the global liquefaction capacity in development  The IMO sulfur standards apply to ship owners globally, as does the development of new LNG supply and bunkering infrastructure  In addition to these factors, domestic LNG bunkering also may be influenced by considerations more specific to the United States  These considerations include growth of the U S  natural gas supply, domestic shipbuilding opportunities, and LNG safety and security  Because of its leading role in global natural gas production, the United States has a particular interest in any new source of natural gas demand  According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States has been the world's top producer of natural gas since 2009, when it surpassed Russia  In 2017, increases in production outstripped increases in domestic gas consumption, leading to the United States becoming a net exporter of natural gas for the first time in nearly 60 years  As discussed above, North America (primarily the United States) is expected to add the most new LNG production capacity through 2030 when including projects that are operating, under construction, and likely (according to investment analysts)  Past increases in U S  LNG exports were driven by greater throughput at the Sabine Pass LNG export terminal—the only operating U S  LNG export terminal in 2017  In March 2018, the Cove Point terminal in Maryland became the second operating U S  LNG export terminal  Four additional projects under construction or commissioning are set to nearly triple U S  liquefaction by the end of 2019  This increase in liquefaction capacity likely will motivate LNG producers to secure new buyers  Figure 6 shows estimated LNG prices for various locations around the world as of October 2018  As the figure shows, LNG prices are substantially lower in North America than in Asia, Europe, and South America  Even after adding $1 00 to $2 00/MMBtu to transport the LNG to overseas ports, LNG produced in the United States is globally competitive at these prices  If LNG from the new liquefaction capacity coming online can be produced and delivered with similar economics, the cost advantage may create an opportunity for U S  LNG in bunker supply  There are over 400 petroleum fuel bunkering ports in the world, but 60% of bunkering in recent years has happened in six countries: Singapore, the United States, China, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and the Netherlands  Of these countries, only the United States is a significant LNG producer  Therefore, the United States could be a favorable source of LNG for domestic bunkering and for bunkering at the other major ports  While the LNG industry historically has had a good safety record, there are unique safety risks associated with LNG in vessel operations  Leakage of LNG during LNG shipping or bunkering can pose several hazards  LNG is stored at temperatures below -162 °C (-260 °F), far below the -20°C at which the carbon steels typically used in shipbuilding become brittle  Consequently, extreme care must be taken to ensure that LNG does not drip or spill onto ship hulls or decking because it could lead to brittle fracture, seriously damaging a ship or bunkering barge  LNG spilled onto water can pose a more serious hazard as it will rapidly and continuously vaporize into natural gas, which could ignite  The resulting "pool fire" would spread as the LNG spill expands away from its source and continues evaporating  A pool fire is intense, far hotter and burning far more rapidly than oil or gasoline fires, and it cannot be extinguished; all the LNG must be consumed before it goes out  Because an LNG pool fire is so hot, its thermal radiation may injure people and damage vessels or property a considerable distance from the fire itself  Many experts agree that a large pool fire, especially on water, is the most serious LNG hazard  Leaks of boil-off gas (the small amount of LNG that vaporizes in storage) can also release natural gas into a port area and cause fires or explosions  Major releases of LNG from large LNG carriers would be most dangerous within 500 meters of the spill and would pose some risk at distances up to 1,600 meters from the spill  While a bunkering barge or a vessel using LNG for fuel contains far less LNG than large LNG carriers, LNG spills in bunkering operations could still be a significant concern  Risks associated with bunkering LNG are complicated in ports seeking to engage in "simultaneous operations" during the bunkering process  Simultaneous operations entail loading and unloading cargo and personnel from a ship, maintenance, and other logistical operations performed while a ship is bunkering  Accidents that occur during such operations (for example, the operation of heavy machinery near pipes transporting LNG) can result in a spill of LNG which can threaten workers positioned near the site of operations  LNG tankers, bunkering vessels, and land-based facilities could be vulnerable to terrorism  Bunkering tanks or vessels might be physically attacked to destroy the LNG they hold—and vessels might be commandeered for use as weapons against port or coastal targets  Potential terrorist attacks on LNG terminals or tankers in the United States have long been a key concern of the public and policymakers in the context of large scale LNG imports or exports because such attacks could cause catastrophic fires in ports and nearby populated areas  For example, a 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office stated that, "the ship-based supply chain for energy commodities," specifically including LNG, "remains threatened and vulnerable, and appropriate security throughout the chain is essential to ensure safe and efficient delivery " Affected communities and federal officials continue to express concern about the security risks of LNG  The potential risks from terrorism to LNG bunkering infrastructure may be different than those of larger LNG import or export operations due to smaller quantities of LNG involved, but the risks may become more widespread if LNG bunkering operations are established in more locations  The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA, P L  107-295 ) and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code give the Coast Guard far-ranging authority over the security of hazardous materials in maritime shipping  The Coast Guard has developed port security plans addressing how to deploy federal, state, and local resources to prevent terrorist attacks  Under the MTSA, the Coast Guard has assessed the overall vulnerability of marine vessels, their potential to transport terrorists or terror materials, and their use as potential weapons  The Coast Guard has employed these assessments to augment port security as necessary and to develop maritime security standards for LNG port facilities  The IMO's overall framework for controlling vessels emissions (MARPOL Annex VI) has been in place since 2005  While the United States, as an IMO member, is subject to the IMO's 2020 sulfur standards, the international standards apply equally to all parties and all vessels  The impacts of sulfur standards on bunker fuel have been an important consideration, but IMO member nations have agreed to the standards independent of any particular energy policies  Moreover, MARPOL Annex VI preceded the U S  shale gas boom, so commitment to that initial IMO framework could not have anticipated United States' current role as a dominant energy producer  Any changes within the international shipping fleet to install sulfur scrubbers, fuel engines with LNG, or switch to other low sulfur fuels, are being driven primarily by market forces in fuel supply, shipbuilding, and shipping—not by any particular push to favor one fuel over another  Nonetheless, given its particular status, the question arises whether the standards may create an economic opportunity for the United States, in energy or otherwise  More specifically, could international adoption of LNG as a bunker fuel create an important new market for U S  natural gas producers, shipbuilders, or infrastructure developers? As discussed above, depending upon the adoption of LNG bunkering in the global fleet, the LNG bunker fuel market could grow to several billion dollars by 2030  If U S  LNG producers were to supply a significant share of this market—on the strength of comparatively low LNG production costs—LNG bunkering could increase demand for U S  natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction  Opportunities in LNG-related shipbuilding might be more limited, as most of this occurs overseas, with the exception of Jones Act vessels  In the latter case, demand for domestically-constructed LNG bunkering barges could be one significant area of economic growth  Engineering and construction firms could benefit from new opportunities to develop new port infrastructure for LNG storage and transfer  While likely limited in number, such port facilities could be complex, high value projects costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to complete  Such projects could create jobs in engineering, construction, and operation, which could be important to local communities  Although LNG bunkering could present the United States with new economic opportunities, it may pose challenges as well  Rising demand for LNG in the maritime sector could increase natural gas prices for domestic consumers  In addition to being the world's largest natural gas producer, as of 2018, the United States is also the world's largest producer of crude oil and the second largest bunkering hub  Consequently, while vessel conversion to LNG bunkering may increase demand for U S -produced natural gas, it could be partially offset by reduced demand for U S -produced crude oil or refined products  Exactly how changing demand in one sector could affect the other is unclear  Furthermore, while LNG can reduce pollutant emissions from vessels, emissions and environmental impacts from increased natural gas production and transportation could increase overall emissions  Much of the net environmental impact depends upon practices in the natural gas industry, which are the subject of ongoing study and debate  Although new LNG bunkering infrastructure can create jobs, as the Tacoma LNG projects shows, the construction of such port facilities can be controversial for reasons of safety, security, and environmental impact  Overarching the considerations above is uncertainty about how the global shipping fleet will adapt to the IMO sulfur standards over time  This uncertainty complicates decisions related to both private investment and public policy  LNG-fueled ships still account for only a fraction of the U S  and global fleets, and it may take several decades for significant benefits of LNG-powered vessels to be realized  It is also possible that alternative ship fuels, including biofuels, electric engines, and hybrid engines, will become more economically viable in coming years  Given the uncertainty surrounding the future of LNG as a ship fuel, it is hard to predict the potential benefits or costs that LNG bunkering may provide to the United States  Until now, the private sector has added LNG-fueled vessels to fleets in the United States in a piecemeal manner under existing federal statutes and regulation  Congress could encourage the growth of LNG bunkering by various means, such as providing tax incentives to support the construction of LNG bunkering facilities and vessels, addressing any statutory or regulatory barriers to bunkering facility siting or operations, and providing funding for technical support to domestic carriers seeking to adopt LNG technology  Alternatively, Congress could seek to encourage competing bunker fuel options, such as biofuels, by incentivizing them in similar ways  In addition, Congress could also affect growth in LNG bunkering through policies affecting the LNG industry or domestic shipping industry as a whole  Changes in federal regulation related to natural gas production, or changes to the Jones Act, for example, while not directed at LNG bunkering, could nonetheless affect its economics  Therefore, evaluating the potential implications on LNG bunkering of broader energy, environmental, or economic objectives may become an additional consideration in congressional oversight and legislative initiatives  If LNG bunkering expands significantly in U S  ports, Congress also may examine the adequacy of existing measures to ensure the safety and security of LNG vessels, storage, and related facilities 
Report 2:  actions in Iraq and Afghanistan  Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 ( P L  113-291 ) expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart  The law states that an event should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization if the perpetrator of the attack "was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack" and "the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization " Still, some are opposed to awarding the Purple Heart for terrorist acts that were initially deemed "workplace violence" by the Department of Defense (DOD) or a criminal act, and not earned on a battlefield  This act arguably sets a precedent for the future and could make Purple Heart eligibility more subjective, allowing public sentiment to determine what events are worthy of a Purple Heart  On April 10, 2015, then-Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, 3 rd Corps and Fort Hood commanding general, presented Purple Hearts to the families of the 10 servicemembers killed and to the 26 servicemembers wounded during the attack  Defense of Freedom Medals were also awarded to DOD civilians killed and wounded during the attack  In a memorandum, Secretary McHugh directed the Army to "expedite certain other benefits for which soldiers receiving the Purple Heart are traditionally eligible " In addition to the victims of the Fort Hood shooting, the two victims of the June 2009, shooting at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, received Purple Hearts on July 1, 2015  Army Private William Andrew "Andy" Long was killed and Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded in that attack by Abdulhakim Muhammad, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole  Encouraged by the expanded eligibility provision in the NDAA for FY2015, legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress to award Purple Hearts to other military victims of domestic terrorism  Section 583 of the House-passed version of H R  1735 , the NDAA for FY2016, would have awarded the Purple Heart to servicemembers who were victims of the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma bombing  Supporters for awarding the Purple Heart to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing refer to the FY2015 NDAA as precedent  However, critics contend that the bombing was an act of domestic terrorism and does not meet the current eligibility requirements of the assailant being inspired by or motivated by an international terrorist organization  The final version of the FY2016 NDAA ( P L  114-92 ) did not include this provision  On July 16, 2015, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot at a Marine Corps recruiting center and Naval Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN  This incident again raised congressional interest regarding the eligibility for the Purple Heart for servicemembers killed and wounded during an attack inspired by or motivated by international terrorist organizations  Four marines were killed and one was injured during the rampage, and the lone sailor later died from his injuries  The FBI investigation later concluded that Abdulazeez was "motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda," but that it was difficult to determine which terrorist group may have inspired him  On December 16, 2015, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Purple Heart would be awarded to five servicemembers killed and one wounded in the July 2015 shootings at two naval centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee  Secretary Mabus stated that "following an extensive investigation, the FBI and NCIS have determined that this attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist group, the final criteria required for the awarding of the Purple Heart to this Sailor and these Marines " On January 14, 2016, then-Navy Vice Admiral Robin Braun presented the Purple Heart to the family of Logistics Specialist 2 nd Class Randall Smith at the Navy Operational Support Center Chattanooga  Brigadier General Terry V  Williams presented the Purple Heart on January 26, 2016, to Sergeant DeMonte R  Cheeley, who survived the attack, at a ceremony in Chattanooga  On April 20, 2016, Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, then-head of Marine Corps Forces Reserve, presented Purple Hearts to the families of Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Sullivan, Staff Sergeant David Wyatt, Sergeant Carson Holmquist, and Lance Corporal Squire "Skip" Wells in a ceremony at the Hunter Museum of American Art in Chattanooga  U S  Airman 1 st Class Spencer Stone was onboard a train from Amsterdam to Paris with two friends, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, when they subdued a heavily armed gunman who attempted to fire an AK-47 at the passengers  Stone was stabbed in the face and neck by the gunman as the trio restrained him before he could discharge his weapon  The vacationing Americans were hailed as heroes and awarded the French Legion of Honor on August 24, 2015  On September 14, 2015, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James announced that Stone would receive the Purple Heart along with the Airman's Medal, the Air Force's highest noncombat award  At the Pentagon on September 17, 2015, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter presented Stone the Purple Heart and Airman's Medal  During the ceremony, Carter presented the Soldier's Medal to Oregon National Guard Specialist Alek Skarlatos, and civilian Anthony Sadler received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor  On June 12, 2016, a security guard, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in an attack inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida  Army Reserve Captain Antonio Davon Brown was one of the 49 people killed and may be eligible for the Purple Heart depending on the outcome of the FBI investigation  According to the FBI, Mateen had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group after his attack in a call to 911  At this time, it is unclear if the Army will make a decision regarding Captain Brown's eligibility for the Purple Heart  On September 28, 2016, H R  6234 was introduced to amend Title 18, U S C , to provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member of the Armed Forces  This legislation would have made selling the medal punishable by fines and up to six months in prison  H R  6234 would have placed the Purple Heart into a new protected category, keeping it away from not just con artists but also memorabilia collectors  The measure was named for Private Corrado Piccoli, a World War II infantryman killed in action in 1944, whose Purple Heart was found for sale at an antique store in 2009  This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations but saw no further action in the 114 th Congress  This legislation was reintroduced in the 115 th Congress on January 13, 2017, as H R  544 , the Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act of 2017, and a related bill, S  765 , was passed by the Senate on August 3, 2017  Both bills were referred to committee in the House but saw no further action  On January 15, 2019, S  122 , Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act, was introduced in the 116 th Congress  The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee  The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2019, H R  5515 , included a provision (Section 629) that would extend certain morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Hearts recipients, and their caregivers  This bill became P L  115-232 on August 13, 2018  Section 621 of the enacted bill adopted House Section 629, which extends eligibility of certain MWR and commissary privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Heart recipients, and their caregivers starting in 2020  For additional information see section, "Defense Commissary System," in CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues   For bill summaries of Purple Heart legislation in the 116 th Congress as introduced, see Table 1   The large number of veterans with invisible wounds returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has the Department of Defense (DOD) reevaluating Purple Heart eligibility for traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and mental conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)  DOD considers some TBIs eligible for the Purple Heart, as many of those injuries can be diagnosed using brain scans and other objective medical tests  However, there is continued debate on the inclusion of mental conditions, such as PTSD, as part of the appropriate criteria for the Purple Heart  Congress, as well as various executive agencies and departments, is funding and conducting studies regarding PTSD  The National Alliance on Mental Illness, a national grassroots advocacy group representing families and people affected by mental illness, is advocating that the Purple Heart be awarded for psychological wounds including PTSD to eliminate stigma and encourage servicemembers to seek care  At this time, DOD does not consider servicemembers with PTSD eligible for the Purple Heart  Army Regulation 600-8-22 allows "concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions" but specifically disqualifies post-traumatic stress disorders  Army guidance emphasizes "the degree to which the enemy caused the injury" when determining eligibility and places PTSD in a column of noneligible injuries  The Marine Corps defines PTSD as a "severe combat stress injury" and says that combat stress injuries are "not directly caused by the enemy's intentional use of an outside force or agent," and thus do not qualify  Servicemembers are divided on this issue  Some servicemembers believe that mental injuries such as PTSD should be eligible for the Purple Heart, while others believe that it would dishonor those who have received Purple Hearts for physical injuries  Proponents argue that some veterans are less likely to seek help for their mental-health injuries because of the stigma associated with PTSD, and that stigma could be lessened by recognizing their injuries as real  Opponents, including some veterans from the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Veterans of Foreign Wars, are resistant to accepting PTSD as grounds for eligibility  A representative of The Military Order of the Purple Heart stated, "We believe strongly in and support the criteria that the wound or death should be sustained in combat at the hands of the enemies of the United States " In addition, the national spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joseph E  Davis, said, "Medals aren't awarded for illness or disease, but for 'achievement and valor '" Appendix A  Timeline of Purple Heart Eligibility August 7, 1782: George Washington creates the Badge of Military Merit  Awarded to several Continental soldiers but it quickly falls from use  February 22, 1932: Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur revives the Badge of Military Merit as an Army award, renamed "the Purple Heart," and retroactively awarded to wounded WWI veterans  December 3, 1942: Executive Order 9277—President Franklin Roosevelt expands Purple Heart eligibility to include U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard  Retroactively awards Purple Hearts to December 6, 1941  November 12, 1952: Executive Order 10409—President Truman retroactively awards Purple Hearts to U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard veterans after April 5, 1917  April 25, 1962: Executive Order 11016—President Kennedy extends eligibility to civilians serving with military forces  February 23, 1984: Executive Order 12464—President Reagan awards Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded in terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or on peacekeeping missions outside the United States  February 10, 1996: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Section 521, P L  104-106 ) includes "prisoners of war wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) " November 18, 1997: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Section 571, P L  105-85 ) limits future Purple Heart awards to members of the Armed Forces  October 17, 2006: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Section 556, P L  109-364 ) includes prisoners of war captured after December 7, 1941  April 30, 2008: Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 2007 ( P L  110-207 ) revises the congressional charter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart to authorize associate membership for the spouse and siblings of a recipient of the Purple Heart medal  December 19, 2014: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Section 571, P L  113-291 ) expands eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization, and awards Purple Heart medals to servicemembers wounded or killed during the 2009 shootings at Ft  Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas  Appendix B  Staffer Instructions for Medal Requests Members of Congress are able to directly request that a Service Secretary consider awarding military decorations to individuals or groups  Upon receiving a request from a Member's office, the Service Secretary concerned will review the proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration)  Based on that review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration and other necessary determinations  The Secretary shall submit a notice to the requesting Member, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee with one of the following results: (1) The award or presentation of the decoration does not warrant approval on the merits  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  (2) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval and a waiver by law of time restrictions prescribed by law is recommended  (3) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits and has been approved as an exception to policy  (4) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits, but a waiver of the time restrictions prescribed in law is not recommended  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  Source: Compiled from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 ( P L  104-106 , §526), February 10, 1996 

ground_truth: The combination of growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies and new requirements for less polluting fuels in the maritime shipping industry has heightened interest in LNG as a maritime fuel. The use of LNG as an engine ("bunker") fuel in shipping is also drawing attention from federal agencies and is beginning to emerge as an issue of interest in Congress. In 2008, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced a timeline to reduce the maximum sulfur content in vessel fuels to 0.5% by January 1, 2020. Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships requires vessels to either use fuels containing less than 0.5% sulfur or install exhaust-cleaning systems ("scrubbers") to limit a vessel's airborne emissions of sulfur oxides to an equivalent level. An option for vessel operators to meet the IMO 2020 standards is to install LNG-fueled engines, which emit only trace amounts of sulfur. Adopting LNG engines requires more investment than installing scrubbers, but LNG-fueled engines may offset their capital costs with operating cost advantages over conventional fuels. Savings would depend on the price spread between LNG and fuel oil. Recent trends suggest that LNG may be cheaper in the long run than conventional fuels. LNG bunkering requires specialized infrastructure for supply, storage, and delivery to vessels. To date, the number of ports worldwide that have developed such infrastructure is limited, although growth in this area has accelerated. Early adoption of LNG bunkering is occurring in Europe where the European Union requires a core network of ports to provide LNG bunkering by 2030. LNG bunkering is also advancing in Asia, led by Singapore, the world's largest bunkering port. Asian countries, together with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, have about 10 coastal ports offering LNG bunkering, with another 15 projects in development. LNG bunkering in the United States currently takes place in Jacksonville, FL, and Port Fourchon, LA—with a third facility under development in Tacoma, WA. Bunkering of LNG-fueled cruise ships using barges also is planned for Port Canaveral, FL. The relative locations of other U.S. ports and operating LNG terminals suggest that LNG bunkering could be within reach of every port along the Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. On the West Coast, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA, are near the Costa Azul LNG terminal in Ensenada, MX. Seattle and Tacoma are adjacent to the proposed Tacoma LNG project. Since 2015, Jones Act coastal ship operators have taken steps to transition their fleets to use cleaner burning fuels, including LNG. Shippers of dry goods to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have taken delivery or have ordered LNG-fueled and LNG-capable vessels from U.S. shipyards in Philadelphia, PA, and Brownsville, TX. Another company operates five LNG-powered offshore supply vessels built in Gulfport, MS. Depending upon LNG conversions, the global LNG bunker fuel market could grow to several billion dollars by 2030. If U.S. LNG producers were to supply a significant share of this market—on the strength of comparatively low LNG production costs—LNG bunkering could increase demand for U.S. natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction. Opportunities in LNG-related shipbuilding might be more limited, as most shipbuilding occurs overseas, although domestically-constructed LNG bunkering barges could be one area of economic growth. Finally, engineering and construction firms could benefit from new opportunities to develop port infrastructure for LNG storage and transfer. However, while vessel conversion to LNG fuel may increase demand for U.S.-produced natural gas, it partially could be offset by reduced demand for U.S.-produced crude oil or refined products. Furthermore, while LNG can reduce direct emissions from vessels, fugitive emissions and environmental impacts from natural gas production and transportation could reduce overall emissions benefits. While the LNG industry has experienced few accidents, the Coast Guard has been developing new standards to address unique safety and security risks associated with LNG in vessel operations. The overarching consideration about LNG bunkering in the United States is uncertainty about how the global shipping fleet will adapt to the IMO sulfur standards over time. This uncertainty complicates decisions related to both private investment and public policy. Although Congress has limited ability to influence global shipping, it could influence the growth of LNG bunkering through the tax code and regulation, or through policies affecting the LNG industry or domestic shipping industry as a whole. Evaluating the potential implications of LNG bunkering within the context of broader energy and environmental policies may become an additional consideration for Congress. If LNG bunkering expands significantly, Congress also may examine the adequacy of existing measures to ensure the safety and security of LNG vessels, storage, and related facilities.