Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 10131 

1 33 CFR parts 127, 155 and 156; 46 CFR parts 10– 

15, 30–39, and 154. 

Contact Person: William A. Greenberg, 

Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168, 

MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 

1726, greenbergwa@csr.nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 

93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 

93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: February 19, 2015. 

Carolyn Baum, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03778 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–1084] 

Policy Letters: Guidance for the Use of 

Liquefied Natural Gas as a Marine Fuel 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: On February 7, 2014, the 

Coast Guard announced the availability, 

in the docket, of two draft policy letters 

for which it sought public comment. 

This notice announces the availability 

of the finalized Coast Guard policy 

letters, including explanations of 

changes made to the policy letters and 

enclosures based on the public 

comments received. The first policy 

letter provides voluntary guidance for 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel transfer 

operations on vessels using natural gas 

as fuel in U.S. waters, and training of 

personnel on those vessels. It 

recommends transfer and personnel 

training measures that we believe will 

achieve a level of safety that is at least 

equivalent to that provided for 

traditional fueled vessels. It applies to 

vessels equipped to receive LNG for use 

as fuel, but not to vessels regulated as 

LNG carriers that utilize boil-off gas as 

fuel. The second policy letter discusses 

voluntary guidance and existing 

regulations applicable to vessels and 

waterfront facilities conducting LNG 

marine fuel transfer (bunkering) 

operations. The second policy letter 

provides voluntary guidance on safety, 

security, and risk assessment measures 

we believe will enhance safe LNG 

bunkering operations. Both policy 

letters are available on the public 

docket. They have been updated to 

reflect publication numbers of the 

current year. Accordingly, as discussed 

in this notice, Policy Letter 01–14 

became Policy Letter 01–15 and Policy 

Letter 02–14 became Policy Letter 02– 

15. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Ken Smith, Vessel and Facility 

Operating Standards Division (CG– 

OES–2), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1413, email Ken.A.Smith@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Viewing material in the docket: To 

view the policy letters and related 

material, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type the docket 

number (USCG–2013–1084) in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ 

Click on ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ on the 

line associated with this notice. If you 

do not have access to the Internet, you 

may view the docket online by visiting 

the Docket Management facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of comments received 

into any of our dockets by the name of 

the individual submitting the comment 

(or signing the comment, if submitted 

on behalf of an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review a 

Privacy Act, system of records notice 

regarding our public dockets in the 

January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal 

Register (73 FR 3316). 

Background and Purpose 

The shipping industry is exploring 

conversion from oil-based fuel to 

cleaner burning natural gas, because the 

use of natural gas as fuel would 

substantially reduce carbon emissions, 

sulfur emissions, and nitrogen oxide 

emissions. This natural gas fuel would 

be stored on and transferred to vessels 

in the form of liquefied natural gas 

(LNG). Existing regulations cover 

design, equipment, operations, and 

training of personnel on vessels that 

carry LNG as cargo and at waterfront 

facilities that handle LNG in bulk. They 

also cover conventional oil fuel transfer 

operations, but do not address LNG 

transferred as fuel.1

On February 7, 2014, the Coast Guard 

published two draft policy letters (CG– 

OES 01–14 and CG–OES 02–14), 

requesting comments, that 

recommended the transfer procedures 

and other operating guidelines for 

vessels and waterfront facilities 

providing LNG to vessels for use as fuel 

and for vessels operating in U.S. waters 

that will be fueled with natural gas that 

will be stored onboard as LNG. The 

Coast Guard has revised these policy 

letters based on comments received and 

now makes the final policy letters 

available to the public. 

The policy letters and voluntary 

guidance do not apply to vessels 

regulated as LNG carriers that utilize 

their boil-off gas as fuel. They also do 

not provide guidance on vessel design 

criteria for natural gas fuel systems or 

design of vessels providing LNG for use 

as fuel. If you have questions about the 

design of these systems, please contact 

the Coast Guard’s Office of Design and 

Engineering Standards (CG–ENG, 

formerly CG–521). See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for contact 

information. 

Discussion 

The Coast Guard received 27 letters 

from the public containing a combined 

total of 185 individual comments which 

are discussed below. We discuss more 

fully the changes we made to the policy 

letters in response to comments. 

All letters received were generally 

supportive of the Coast Guard’s effort to 

provide guidance on the use and 

transfer of LNG as a marine fuel and the 

Coast Guard appreciates this important 

feedback. 

We also received various comments 

recommending changes that cannot be 

made in a policy document because the 

Coast Guard would need to undergo 

rulemaking to make these recommended 

changes enforceable. For example, one 

submitter suggested that we provide 

specific details concerning the 

information that risk assessments 

should contain. Another submitter 

suggested that we provide common 

checklists for industry to follow when 

conducting bunkering operations. The 

Coast Guard will consider these 

comments and determine whether any 

further action is necessary. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard received 

comments on matters unrelated to the 

two policy letters discussed in this 

notice. Those comments have been 

reviewed but did not effect any changes 

to these policy letters. Examples of some 

of the comments we received pertaining 

to design were related to venting 

arrangements, LNG tank design, and gas 

detection. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 

Vessel design issues relating to the 

technical aspects and problems inherent 

in vessel design are not discussed in 

Policy Letters 01–15 and 02–15. We do 

not intend to include vessel design 

recommendations or equivalencies in 

either policy letter and thus comments 

requesting design related revisions 

cannot be incorporated. Information 

concerning design criteria for natural 

gas fuel systems can be found in CG– 

521 Policy Letter 01–12, ‘‘Equivalency 

Determination—Design Criteria For 

Natural Gas Fuel Systems,’’ which can 

be viewed at the following location: 

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/

docs/CG-521.PolicyLetter.01-12.pdf. 

The Coast Guard also identified 

certain non-substantive 

recommendations in comments. Many 

of these are useful and have been 

incorporated where appropriate. 

Six comments were submitted 

recommending that Compressed Natural 

Gas (CNG) and other alternative fuels be 

addressed in our policy letters. The 

Coast Guard believes it is better at this 

time to evaluate other alternative fuels 

on a case-by-case basis and will 

continue to gather information on how 

these alternative fuels are used to 

determine whether guidance is 

necessary and appropriate. One 

submitter suggested that it would be 

useful if we added language indicating 

how LNG differs from other 

‘‘conventional’’ liquid hydrocarbon 

fuels. The Coast Guard agrees and added 

additional information in Policy Letter 

01–15, Enclosure (1). 

Five comments were submitted on the 

topic of hot work. Based on the 

comments received, the Coast Guard 

revised its discussion on hot work in 

Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) to 

further clarify that hot work must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

existing regulations to which vessels are 

inspected. Where no regulations are 

specified, we recommend that the 

regulations in 46 CFR 91.50–1 be 

followed. 

Six comments were received on the 

Coast Guard’s use of the term ‘‘in bulk.’’ 

Three comments asked whether LNG 

packaged in ISO tanktainers, and loaded 

on a vessel, is not ‘‘in bulk’’ and 

therefore not subject to 33 CFR Part 127. 

The Coast Guard confirms that LNG in 

packaged form such as LNG in ISO 

tanktainers is not considered an ‘‘in 

bulk’’ shipment and the facility where 

those packages are loaded does not need 

to comply with 33 CFR Part 127. The 

Coast Guard further clarifies that LNG in 

ISO tanktainers is a hazardous material 

in packaged form and as such must be 

loaded from a facility that complies 

with 33 CFR Part 126. Three additional 

comments requested clarification on the 

Coast Guard’s definition of the term 

‘‘bulk.’’ In response to these requests, 

the Coast Guard clarifies in Policy Letter 

01–15, Enclosure (1) that ‘‘bulk’’ has the 

meaning defined in the Marine Safety 

Manual as a material that is transported 

on board a vessel without mark or count 

and which is directly loaded into a hold 

or tank on a vessel without containers 

or wrappers. 

Six comments were received on LNG 

tank truck operations. Three spoke to 

matters involving the driving and 

transfer of LNG from tank trucks 

directly on a vessel, and one wanted to 

know why the Coast Guard doesn’t 

discuss the activity. The Coast Guard 

does not discuss this type of operation 

because the operation is not considered 

as safe as other forms of transfer 

operations available. Driving LNG tank 

trucks aboard a vessel and conducting 

LNG transfer operations while aboard is 

considered to be a transfer involving a 

greater risk than other forms of LNG 

transfers because vessels and LNG tank 

trucks cannot remove themselves from 

the area in the event of an emergency. 

The Coast Guard does not wish to 

promote the operation in general, but 

remains open to evaluating requests on 

a case-by-case basis. One submitter 

requested to know if all of 33 CFR Part 

127 would apply to LNG tank truck and 

rail car transfers. As discussed in 

Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter 02–15, 

existing regulatory standards may not be 

appropriate for small scale (e.g., LNG 

fuel transfer) operations and the Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) may 

consider alternatives under 33 CFR 

127.017. 

Five comments were received 

concerning ISO type tanks. One 

submitter noted that ISO tanks need to 

be properly approved and designed and 

are not as robust as type ‘‘C’’ tanks. The 

Coast Guard notes that LNG in portable 

tanks must meet specifications outlined 

by the Department of Transportation for 

transport and carriage of hazardous 

materials in accordance with the 

Hazardous Material Regulations 

contained in Title 49 of the U.S. Code 

of Federal Regulations. The Coast Guard 

Office of Design and Engineering (CG– 

ENG) and/or the Marine Safety Center 

will evaluate as part of their plan review 

and approval process the design and 

construction of tanks used to store LNG 

as fuel on board U.S. vessels. 

Four comments were received 

concerning guidance to the COTP for 

considering alternatives to the 

requirements in 33 CFR Part 127. Of 

those comments received, two 

comments also recommended Coast 

Guard Headquarters oversight so as to 

ensure greater consistency from port to 

port. The Coast Guard recognizes the 

need and desire for consistency from 

port to port and throughout the Coast 

Guard. To help COTPs understand 

alternatives which may be considered 

for the requirements in 33 CFR Part 127, 

we have added a new enclosure. 

Enclosure (4) to Policy letter 02–15 has 

been added to provide COTPs with 

guidance as to alternatives which may 

be considered in lieu of the 

requirements of 33 CFR Part 127 for 

LNG fuel facilities. Through publication 

of these policy letters and continued 

work within the Coast Guard, we hope 

to provide consistent application of 

regulations and policies for LNG 

operations throughout the country. 

Ten comments were received on the 

topic of conducting Risk Assessments. 

One of the submitters recommended we 

add more wording concerning 

identification of hazards (HAZID’s), 

operational hazards (HAZOP’s) and 

quantitaive risk assessments (QRA’s). 

The Coast Guard agrees and added 

additional guidance and information 

concerning the need to conduct risk 

assessments. We have revised Enclosure 

1 of Policy Letter 01–15 and Enclosures 

1 and 2 of Policy Letter 02–15 to include 

more information on recommendations 

for risk assessments established by 

recognized industry organizations. 

Finally, one submitter stated that there 

is no clearly defined or broadly 

accepted standard for evaluating risk 

assessments and noted that NFPA 

standard 551 has some guidance which 

should be considered. For the purpose 

of harmonizing with the international 

community, we recommend and 

reference in the policy letters the 

publications of the classification society 

Det Norske Veritas—Germanischer 

Lloyd (DNV–GL) and the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

as guides which should be used to 

conduct risk assessments. 

The Coast Guard received twelve 

comments on training and drills. One 

submitter indicated that the Coast Guard 

should establish and specify definite 

training intervals in order to avoid 

differing interpretations. The Coast 

Guard agrees that guidance on 

appropriate intervals would be helpful 

and suggests as an example that the 

drills be conducted quarterly. One 

submitter indicated that they strongly 

support having defined training 

requirements and believe this will 

significantly contribute to a safer 

industry. The Coast Guard agrees. The 

amendments to this policy include 

recommended training provisions. This 

guidance identifies a two-tier system— 

basic and advanced training that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 10133 

companies may use to structure their 

training. In addition, the company is 

also responsible for the vessel 

familiarization of the crew members 

which is ship and fuel specific and 

tailored to each mariner’s onboard 

duties. The recommendations are 

consistent with the proposed 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) ‘‘Interim guidance on training for 

seafarers on board ships using gases or 

other low-flashpoint fuels’’, STCW.7/

Circ.23, the draft amendments to the 

STCW Convention, and the MERPAC 

recommendations on this issue. The 

Coast Guard has added a new Enclosure 

(3) to Policy Letter 01–15 which is based 

upon ‘‘Interim guidance on training for 

seafarers on board ships using gases or 

other low-flashpoint fuels’’, STCW.7/

Circ.23. STCW.7/Circ.23 is the final 

version of HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 that 

is referenced by the submitters. Another 

submitter also indicated they believed 

the Coast Guard should ensure the 

transitional provisions are followed as 

an interim measure until relevant STCW 

requirements come into force to allow 

for initial personnel training for the new 

technology. The Coast Guard agrees and 

is recommending interim steps as part 

of this policy letter to help ensure an 

orderly transition to future mandatory 

requirements. One submitter suggested 

that Enclosure (2) of Policy Letter 01–14 

be deleted in its entirety because the 

guidelines contained in Resolution 

MSC.285(86) are expected to be 

superseded by new interim guidance 

recommended in HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 

once the guidance is adopted by MSC. 

The Coast Guard agrees in part. 

Enclosure 2 repeats Chapter 8 of IMO 

Resolution MSC.285(86), ‘‘Interim 

guidelines on safety for natural gasfuelled engine installations in ships,’’ 

which contains both training and 

operational components. We’ve retained 

the operational components from 

Enclosure 2 and replaced the training 

components with the product from 

STCW.7/Circ.23, ‘‘Interim guidance on 

training for seafarers on board ships 

using gases or other low-flashpoint 

fuels’’ as Enclosure (3). STCW.7/Circ.23 

is the current IMO circular which is 

based upon the HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 

that is being referenced by the 

submitters. One submitter 

recommended that the Coast Guard 

work towards approving training 

courses that meet the proposed 

requirements of part A (Annex 4) of 

HTW 1/WP.3 and look to begin issuing 

endorsements as quickly as possible. 

The Coast Guard agrees in principle but 

is unable to approve courses or issue 

endorsements until enabling regulations 

are in place. However, the Coast Guard 

is endeavoring to provide within CG– 

OES Policy Letter 01–15, interim 

guidance that can be used by maritime 

training providers, maritime companies 

and mariners to develop training 

courses and will review courses 

submitted on a voluntary basis that are 

designed to meet the training guidance 

outlined in Enclosure (3). The Coast 

Guard will issue a letter to maritime 

training providers attesting to the Coast 

Guard’s review and conformance of 

these courses with the training 

recommended in this guidance. One 

submitter additionally noted that the 

various means of transfer would require 

various levels of qualification and 

training specific to transfers. The Coast 

Guard agrees that training guidelines 

would be helpful to companies involved 

in transfers. The Coast Guard has 

expanded the training guidelines in line 

with work currently ongoing at IMO and 

MERPAC recommendations. MERPAC 

provided recommendations on the 

content of the training, transitional 

provisions, and the proof of training. 

Their recommendations are included in 

the revised policy letter. As for mariners 

holding tankerman PIC (LG), tankermanengineer (LG) and tankerman assistant 

(LG) endorsements, transition 

requirements have also been addressed. 

One submitter presumed that the 

Coast Guard will not require a special 

endorsement on a license or Merchant 

Mariner Document (MMD) for mariners 

serving aboard an LNG powered vessel 

other than the PIC, who must hold a 

proper endorsement in order to conduct 

the transfer operation. The submitter 

also stated that the policy letter was 

silent as to the level of competency that 

each company must provide for other 

shipboard personnel involved in LNG 

bunkering operations. In response, the 

Coast Guard has expanded the training 

section of the policy letter to include 

recommended training for members of 

the vessel’s crew who have safety 

responsibilities in regard to the gases or 

low flashpoint fuels being used and that 

documentary evidence such as course 

completion certificates, company letters, 

etc., should be issued indicating that the 

holder has successfully completed the 

basic or advanced training, as 

appropriate—See Enclosure 3 of Policy 

Letter 01–15. One submitter indicated 

that care should be taken to assure that 

training for personnel on board vessels 

using gas fuels are differentiated from a 

full tankerman (LG endorsement) as 

appropriate and that referencing the 

parts of 46 CFR that are for Tankerman 

should be eliminated. The Coast Guard 

agrees that vessel personnel on vessels 

using gases and low flashpoint fuels 

should be differentiated from full 

tankerman. As a result, 

recommendations specific to their 

training have been provided in 

Enclosure (3) accordingly. 

The Coast Guard received three 

comments concerning PICs. One 

submitter indicated that the Coast Guard 

needs to clarify the meaning of the word 

‘‘enough’’ where it is stated that, ‘‘. . . 

there must be enough Tankerman-PICs 

on duty . . .’’ noting that the word 

‘‘enough’’ is too vague. The Coast Guard 

notes the submitters concern, and 

understands that the term may be 

ambiguous. However, the term is carried 

forth from the existing regulations for 

cargo handling operations in 46 CFR 

35.35–1 allowing flexibilty to owners, 

managing operators, masters, and PICs 

in determining the number of qualified 

personnel needed to safely transfer 

liquid cargo based on the details of a 

specific transfer operation. Enclosure 2 

of Policy Letter 02–15, pertaining to 

tank vessels transfering LNG, remains 

unchanged in this regard and points to 

the regulations in 46 CFR 35.35–1 and 

154.1831 outlining the qualifications for 

personnel involved in liquid cargo 

transfer. However, aboard the receiving 

vessel that uses gases or low flashpoint 

fuels, the Coast Guard recommends in 

Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01–15, 

that the Master of a vessel using LNG as 

fuel should ensure that all personnel 

involved with LNG fuel use, transfer, or 

emergency response meet the standards 

of competence or advanced standards of 

competence outlined in Enclosure (3) of 

Policy Letter 01–15 for the duties to 

which they are assigned. One submitter 

noted that both the receiving vessel and 

supplier of LNG have PICs but our 

policy letters did not discuss an overall 

PIC, and requested to know who the 

overall PIC is. The Coast Guard does not 

discuss designatation of an overall PIC, 

because the Coast Guard does not 

believe an overall PIC is necessary. 

Similar to conventional fuel transfer 

operations, no one individual is 

designated as having overall control and 

responsibility for the transfer. Each PIC 

is responsible for their part of the 

transfer operation (supplier and 

receiver) and each side of the transfer 

should have a means to stop the transfer 

in the event of an emergency (See 33 

CFR 127.205 and 155.780). Both 

supplier and receiver must have a 

means for dedicated voice 

communication with each other in order 

to maintain oversight and control of 

LNG tanks and transfer lines (See 33 

CFR 127.111 and 155.785). Given that 

personnel on either side of the transfer 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 

may not be familiar or experienced with 

equipment on the other side, it would 

be improper to assign one entity as 

being in charge overall. For this reason, 

the transfer operation should be an 

event highly coordinated by both PICs. 

One submitter suggested the Coast 

Guard add three additional points 

covering PIC responsibilities— 

‘‘Establishment of safety zone 

encompassing both supplier and 

receiving vessel,’’ ‘‘Emergency response 

personnel defined and readiness,’’ and 

‘‘Monitoring of climatic conditions prior 

to and during transfer operations.’’ The 

Coast Guard agrees in part and has 

modified the section in Enclosure (1) of 

Policy Letter 01–15 discussing PIC 

responsibilities to include checking for 

climatic conditions and setting safety 

and security areas around the LNG 

transfer area. Information related to 

emergency response is covered in item 

2 of the same section. 

Two comments were submitted on 

portable gas detectors. Both expressed a 

belief that it was unnecessary for all 

personnel involved in an LNG transfer 

to have a portable gas detector and 

suggested that the policy letter align 

with existing regulations (See 33 CFR 

127.203 and 46 CFR 154.1345) which 

require at least 2 portable gas detectors 

in the marine transfer area. The Coast 

Guard agrees and has modified the 

policy letters to align with existing 

regulations. 

Eight comments were received 

concerning simultaneous operations. All 

but one supported the need to conduct 

simultaneous operations. The one 

comment submitted against 

simultaneous operations stated that 

simultaneous operations create a 

significant risk factor, dramatically 

increasing the likelihood of a casualty 

while fueling. The Coast Guard agrees 

that simultaneous operations may 

introduce increased risk, but believes 

that performance of a risk analysis and 

incorporation of risk mitigation 

measures can be useful toward 

decreasing the likelihood of a casualty 

occurring while fueling. One comment 

stated that simultaneous operations 

should not be treated any differently 

than current fueling operations. One 

comment indicated that simultaneous 

operations should only be allowed after 

a detailed risk analysis and dispersion 

analysis are completed. Two comments 

indicated the need to have a definitive 

statement that the Coast Guard 

recognizes the need to allow 

simultaneous operations. The Coast 

Guard agrees with the majority of 

commenters and has modified the 

discussion of simultaneous operations 

in Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) to 

include a more definitive statement 

concerning the need for considering 

simultaneous operations and identifies 

recommended industry standards which 

may be used by facility owners to 

conduct risk assessments. The Coast 

Guard does not wish to specify what 

operations may or may not be 

conducted simultaneously while LNG 

transfer operations are in progress and 

the COTP will evaluate each proposal 

on a case-by-case basis based on the 

specific hazards involved. 

Three comments were submitted on 

emergency shutdown devices (ESD). 

One submitter said all ESD components 

are to be tested no more than 24 hours 

before commencement of the actual 

bunkering operation and that the tests 

should be documented in accordance 

with the bunkering procedure. The 

Coast Guard agrees. In accordance with 

33 CFR 127.315(i), and 156.120(r), the 

ESD system is currently required to be 

tested by the PIC prior to transfer which 

should be well within the 24 hour 

period suggested. One submitter 

suggested that there could be an 

exemption for testing bunker tanker ESD 

equipment, provided evidence of 

regular testing is available or alternative 

requirements are deemed as an 

acceptable equivalence. The Coast 

Guard disagrees. As noted previously, 

testing of the ESD system must be 

conducted by the PIC prior to the 

transfer as required by existing 

regulations 33 CFR 127.315(i), and 

156.120(r). One submitter suggested that 

automatic activation of the ESD system 

due to a gas detection alarm should be 

reconsidered noting that gas detection 

systems have been prone to false alarms, 

particularly if located in humid areas, 

and repeated shutdowns due to 

erroneous alarms could create an 

unanticipated hazard. The Coast Guard 

is unaware of this being a widespread 

problem attributed to the performance 

of all gas detection systems available on 

the market. However, we have amended 

Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) such 

that gas detection is one of eight items 

that can be considered as a means to 

activate the ESD system. 

Two comments were received on 

checklists. One commenter indicated 

that compatibility between the LNG 

supplier and the vessel receiving LNG 

must be ensured in terms of LNG 

transfer system design, operational 

manuals, emergency response 

procedures and a common checklist for 

the LNG transfer operation. Another 

comment requested that we consider 

adopting a professional industry 

organization’s bunker checklists into 

our policy letters. The Coast Guard 

agrees that the use of checklists is 

valuable. We have provided a hyperlink 

in our policy letters recommending that 

owners and operators involved in LNG 

transfer operations consider using 

checklists in order to help globally 

standardize LNG transfer operations. 

Five comments were submitted 

concerning hazard zones, safety 

distances, and transfer areas. One 

submitter questioned whether or not the 

transfer area is considered to be a 

hazardous area and asserted that no 

ignition sources should exist in the 

transfer area. The Coast Guard agrees 

and confirms that the transfer area is 

considered to be a hazardous area. 

Details concerning removal of ignition 

sources associated with LNG supply are 

addressed in Policy Letter 02–15 which 

focuses on vessels and facilities 

providing LNG as fuel. One submitter 

noted that we refer to transfer area and 

hazardous area, but believed that 

consideration on ‘Determination of 

safety and security zones’ should be 

given. They also pointed out a key 

aspect with regard to the responsibility 

of the PIC is to establish the exchange 

of sufficient information to allow 

completion of a Declaration of Security 

(if required), agreement on how and 

between whom, communications 

regarding security that are to be made 

and actions to be taken in the event of 

a breach of security. Another submitter 

commented that there should be a 

discussion about hazardous areas and 

safety and security areas around the 

LNG transfer area. The Coast Guard 

agrees and has added a new paragraph 

discussing the items in Enclosure (1) of 

Policy Letter 01–15. One additional 

submitter stated that advice needs to be 

given regarding safety distances at 

different transfer rates, due to increasing 

‘‘largest credible spills’’ and that 

dispersion analysis needs to be 

included. The Coast Guard agrees with 

the need to provide additional 

information concerning safety and 

security areas and has added 

information in Policy Letter 01–15, 

Enclosure (1) indicating they should be 

established in accordance with industry 

standards established by the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) which is a 

recognized organization that has 

published information related to 

determining the size of safety and 

security areas around LNG transfer 

points. The Coast Guard doesn’t agree 

with the need to require a declaration of 

security at this time, and notes that 

existing regulations concerning the 

declaration of inspection (33 CFR 

127.317, and 33 CFR 156.150) require 

PICs to conduct a series of checks before 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 10135 

transfer operations, including ensuring 

that communications are operable 

between PICs involved in the transfer. 

The Coast Guard agrees that breaches in 

safety and security areas should be 

evaluated and has included a 

recommendation that a contingency 

plan be developed concerning how to 

handle and respond to them. One 

submitter stated that consideration 

should be given to include the scope for 

interaction of a vessel’s hazardous areas, 

emergency response equipment 

(firefighting, mechanical ventilation, 

etc.) emergency response procedures 

and linked ESD systems. The Coast 

Guard agrees. These items should be 

considered as part of the compatability 

assessment we recommend to be 

conducted between suppliers and 

receivers of LNG. We also recommend 

that emergency response manuals be 

developed and provide a list of 

recommended information they should 

contain. 

Four comments were submitted 

concerning pipelines. One comment 

suggested that we delete references to 

bonding of pipelines in Policy Letter 

01–14, Enclosure (1) in the section 

discussing detailed diagrams of the 

transfer area. The submitter indicated it 

was not clear how this would be shown 

on a diagram. The Coast Guard agrees 

and has removed the item as suggested. 

One submitter addressed the discussion 

on, ‘‘Conduct before a LNG Fuel 

Transfer’’ under Regulations and 

Recommendations for Vessels 

Bunkering LNG, of Enclosure (2) to CG– 

OES Policy Letter No. 02–14. The 

submitter noted the policy letter states 

that before transferring LNG to a vessel 

for use of gas as fuel, the PIC for 

transferring LNG should inspect the 

accessible portions of the transfer piping 

system and equipment to be used during 

the transfer and ensure that any worn or 

inoperable parts are replaced and any 

leaks are identified. The Coast Guard 

agrees and has added an item 

recommending that the transfer piping 

be tested for leaks prior to the transfer 

of LNG. Finally, one comment was 

received concerning Policy Letter 02– 

14, Enclosure (2) section discussing, 

‘‘Conduct after a LNG Fuel Transfer.’’ 

The submitter requested adding a 

requirement to ensure that transfer 

hoses, manifolds, and associated piping 

are purged so that natural gas levels are 

below the lower flammability level. The 

Coast Guard has amended the section to 

recommend these types of safety 

measures. 

We received one comment on loading 

flanges. The submitter indicated the 

existing regulations contain seemingly 

contradictory provisions which could 

complicate the siting, permitting and 

operation of such facilities. The 

submitter noted that Part 127 and Part 

193 contain differing requirements in 

terms of the location of LNG loading 

flanges in relation to nearby bridges. 

The Coast Guard understands the 

concerns, but notes that any correction 

to these regulations would need to go 

through the Department of 

Transporation or USCG rulemaking 

process. Therefore, the noted 

discrepancies cannot be rectified 

through these policy letters. 

We received one comment concerning 

transfer hoses. The submitter referenced 

an early draft version of our policy letter 

suggesting that the transfer hose should 

include provisions to prevent electrical 

flow during connection or 

disconnection of the transfer hose string 

through the hose string or loading arm. 

The insertion of one short length of nonconducting hose without internal 

bonding in each hose string, or 

installation of an insulating flange, 

should be addressed. In addition, the 

submitter suggested that each transfer 

hose string should contain only one 

electrically discontinuous length of hose 

or insulating flange, to prevent 

electrostatic build-up in the hose string. 

The Coast Guard agrees and has 

amended Policy Letter 02–15, Enclosure 

(2) to include these recommendations. 

One comment was received on 

lighting whereby the submitter 

suggested that the intensity levels 

should not be specified. The Coast 

Guard disagrees as the lighting intensity 

levels specified in the policy letters 

simply mirror existing federal 

regulations already imposed for transfer 

operations. See 33 CFR 127.109 and 

155.790. 

One comment was submitted 

concerning operations manuals whereby 

the submitter said there should be a 

provision to demonstrate that all 

relevant personnel are familiar with the 

operations manual. The Coast Guard 

agrees and has modified the opening 

paragraph discussing operation, 

emergency, and maintenance manuals 

in policy letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) 

indicating that the master of a vessel 

using LNG as fuel should ensure that all 

personnel involved with LNG fuel use, 

transfer, or emergency response are 

familiar with the contents of the LNG 

fuel transfer system operations manual. 

We received three comments 

concerning emergency procedures. One 

commenter stated that simultaneous 

operations imposes the need for more 

requirements, especially where 

passengers, public or non-qualified/

briefed personnel are in proximity of the 

bunkering operation. At a minimum, the 

submitter stated a need to consider 

emergency procedures for handling of 

passengers in the event of an incident 

during bunkering. The Coast Guard 

agrees and has modified Policy Letter 

01–15, Enclosure (1) to include a 

provision in the emergency manual for 

removing or relocating passengers in the 

event of an LNG incident during 

bunkering. One commenter suggested 

that the LNG bunkering and emergency 

response procedures take into account 

the LNG bunkering system in place and 

that the results of the risk assessment 

studies are adequately managed. The 

Coast Guard agrees and has included 

reference to recognized standards for 

conducting risk assessments which are 

identified in Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter 

01–15 and Enclosures 1 and 2 of Policy 

Letter 02–15. The risk assessment we 

recommend should be based on specific 

details of the operation intended and 

identify associated risks and hazards 

and the means to mitigate those risks. 

The risk assessment is expected to be 

used as a guide to assist owners and 

operators in developing their bunkering 

and emergency response procedures. 

One commenter asked for guidance on 

what security requirements, if any, will 

be required for the vessel arriving at the 

facility to receive LNG for fuel. If 

applicable, the security requirements for 

vessels may be based on the 

requirements of 33 CFR part 104— 

Maritime Security: Vessels. 

Additionally, a safety or security zone 

may be established around a vessel by 

the COTP if it is determined necessary 

based on the results of a risk 

assessment. 

Six comments were received 

concerning the topic of LNG bunkering. 

One commenter suggested that LNG 

bunkering procedures should ensure 

that unauthorized and non-essential 

personnel cannot enter the bunkering 

area. The Coast Guard agrees and has 

amended Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure 

(1) to include a recommendation that 

procedures be established for setting, 

securing, and clearing safety and 

security areas around the LNG transfer 

point. Two commenters recommended 

that the operator define the operational 

envelope under which transfer can take 

place noting that this should be 

indicated as a ‘‘permissible range of 

motion where transfer operations can 

proceed (to be defined for the operation 

as well as the transfer equipment)’’, and 

be included in the Operations manual. 

The Coast Guard agrees and has 

amended Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure 

(1) recommending that the operations 

manual define the operating envelope 

for which safe transfer operations can 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 

and cannot occur. One submitter 

suggested that paragraph 5b. of Policy 

Letter No. 01–14 be modified to impose 

a mutual obligation on both the 

transferring vessel operator and the 

receiving vessel operator to ensure that 

both parties have the personnel and 

equipment to safely conduct LNG 

bunkering operations. The Coast Guard 

agrees and has added recommended 

information related to the declaration of 

inspection which must be signed and 

completed by both persons in charge of 

the transfer in accordance with 33 CFR 

156.150 signifying a mutal obligation on 

the part of both parties. One commenter 

stated that it is critical to have a 

common set of regulatory procedures for 

all LNG bunkering operations in all 

ports in the United States (as exists 

today under 33 CFR part 127 and 

elsewhere) which companies could 

incorporate into their operational plans 

and crew training. The Coast Guard 

agrees that standardized procedures 

help ensure safe transfer operations and 

believes the policy letters will help 

establish guidelines for standardized 

industry procedures. 

Eight comments were submitted 

concerning referenced standards. The 

Coast Guard received one comment 

pointing out that the reference to 

SIGTTO’s LNG Ship to Ship Transfer 

Guidelines, 1st Edition, 2011, was 

outdated and should be replaced with 

SIGTTO’s ‘‘Ship to Ship Transfer 

Guide—Petroleum, Chemicals, & 

Liquefied Gases,’’ 1st Edition, 2013, 

whenever referenced. The Coast Guard 

agrees and has modified the policy 

letters as suggested to reflect the 

updated industry standard. One 

comment requested referencing NFPA 

59A, the ‘‘Standard for the Production, 

Storage, and Handling of Liquefied 

Natural Gas’’ and SIGTTO’s ‘‘Liquid Gas 

Fire Hazard Management’’ in our 

discussion of firefighting equipment in 

Policy Letter 02–14, Enclosure (2). The 

Coast Guard agrees in part and has 

added a reference to the SIGTTO 

publication, but does not reference 

NFPA 59A because the standard refers 

to shore based LNG storage and 

production facilities and Enclosure (2) 

of Policy Letter 02–15 is focused on 

vessels providing LNG as fuel. We 

received a comment suggesting that we 

add a reference to SIGTTO 2009 

publication, ‘‘ESD Arrangements & 

Linked Ship/Shore Systems for 

Liquefied Gas Carriers’’ in the 

discussion of emergency shutdown 

devices in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 

01–14. The Coast Guard agrees and has 

modified the section as requested. Two 

comments suggested full incorporation 

of International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) standards and guidelines. Policy 

letter 01–15 outlines these operational 

items in great detail but we have added 

a recommendation to better align with 

IMO guidance noting that procedures 

for confined space entry should be 

included in the operations manual. One 

submitter provided a list of industry 

standards and guides which the Coast 

Guard should consider recognizing. The 

Coast Guard has provided a hyperlink to 

a free publication provided by the LNG 

Ship Fuel Advisory Group, titled, 

‘‘Standards and Guidelines for Natural 

Gas Fuelled Ship Projects’’ which 

identifies many of these standards and 

recommends that owners and operators 

become familiar with its contents. This 

change can be found in Policy Letter 

01–15, Enclosure (1), and Policy Letter 

02–15, Enclosures (1) and (2) under the 

section labeled Job Aides. 

One submitter suggested Policy Letter 

01–14, Enclosure (1) not recommend 

installation of firefighting equipment on 

unmanned barges because potential 

operating scenarios of a barge may 

include operations away from the LNG 

facility and firefighting capabilities of a 

towing vessel during vessel-to-vessel 

operations could be difficult to ensure. 

The Coast Guard disagrees and believes 

operators should consider all 

firefighting equipment available in the 

vicinity of an LNG transfer operation 

whether the transfer is off port or at 

shore. When conducting a safety 

assessment for a particular operation, all 

available firefighting equipment and 

emergency response equipment should 

be considered. 

One comment suggested that due to 

the cryogenic properties of LNG, 

personal protective equipment should 

be listed with more specificity, 

including such items as leather working 

boots (no canvas sneakers should be 

worn during fueling or transfer 

operations), loose fitting fire resistant 

gloves, full face shields, and fit-for 

purpose multi-layer clothing. The Coast 

Guard agrees and has modified the 

sections in Policy Letter 01–15, 

Enclosure (1) and Policy Letter 02–15, 

Enclosure (2) discussing recommended 

personal protective equipment. 

The Coast Guard received comments 

about how the policy letters will be 

enforced. One commenter raised 

concerns regarding the notice and 

comment process of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, et 

seq., with regard to the guidance 

document process and Due Process 

concerns of appealing a Coast Guard 

decision. The Coast Guard notes that 

guidance documents are by their nature 

non-binding as they are created to assist 

the industry in absence of other sources 

or in explaining existing regulatory 

requirements. These policy letters 

provide clarification to industry of 

existing requirements and how to apply 

them in this quickly changing 

environment. These policy letters do not 

impose legally binding requirements 

and a company can choose not to adopt 

the recommendations in the policy 

letter if it desires. There is no 

enforcement action associated with 

these recommendations and thus no 

appeal process is necessary. However, it 

is important to note that anyone affected 

by a direct decision of an OCMI/COTP 

can appeal that decision to the District 

Commander as provided for in 46 CFR 

1.03–20 and 33 CFR 127.015. Finally, 

the Coast Guard received one comment 

requesting clarification on the statement 

in Policy Letter 01–14 indicating that it 

is the responsibility of the operator of 

the facility and/or the transferring vessel 

to ensure that the receiving vessel has 

the necessary personnel and equipment 

to safely and securely participate in the 

conduct of an LNG transfer operation. 

While the regulations in 33 CFR Part 

127, Subpart B, indicate the primary 

responsibility for ensuring appropriate 

LNG transfer protocols are followed lies 

with the facility operator, the receiving 

vessel is required by 33 CFR 156.120 

and 156.150 to identify a PIC of transfer 

operations on the vessel who will assist 

the PIC of shoreside transfer operations 

in conducting the preliminary transfer 

inspection required and completing the 

declaration of inspections required by 

33 CFR 127.317 and 156.150. The 

qualifications set forth at 33 CFR 

127.301 and 33 CFR 155.710 

(Qualifications of person in charge) are 

good guidance for assigning a PIC. 

Addtionally, this policy sets forth 

recommended personnel training 

guidelines for those personnel who will 

participate in the transfer operation. 

We received one comment asking for 

guidance on the topic of roll over. As a 

result of this comment, the Coast Guard 

added roll over to the list of items in 

Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) for 

which emergency actions and response 

measures should be described in the 

emergency manual. 

One comment suggested that the 

word, ‘‘if used’’ be deleted in enclosure 

(1) to CG–OES Policy Letter No. 01–14, 

on page 2, under the heading, 

‘‘Operations, Emergency, and 

Maintenance Manuals,’’ noting that 

inert gas must be used to prevent 

potentially explosive conditions. The 

Coast Guard agrees and has amended 

the policy letter as suggested. 

Finally, one comment was submitted 

requesting that the Coast Guard 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 10137 

elaborate what is meant by the boundary 

of a facility conducting bunkering. In 

response, the Coast Guard provides that 

the boundaries of an LNG facility 

handling LNG should be based on the 

requirements for design and spacing in 

NFPA 59A as outlined in 33 CFR Part 

127 and any risk or fire safety 

assessments that may be prepared for 

the specific operation. The boundary of 

each facility conducting bunkering 

should be based on details of the 

specific bunkering operation. 

Voluntary Policy 

The Coast Guard’s intent in issuing 

these policy letters is to assist the 

industry, public, Coast Guard, and other 

Federal and State regulators in applying 

existing statutory and regulatory 

requirements. Following the policy and 

guidance recommended in these policy 

letters is voluntary. The policy letters 

are not a substitute for applicable legal 

requirements nor are they regulations 

themselves. The policy letters, however, 

do contain references to existing 

requlations which may require certain 

action where applicable. The Coast 

Guard notes those instances where it 

discusses requirements under existing 

regulations instead of policy or 

guidance. Nothing in the policy letters 

and guidance they contain are meant to 

override or subvert the discretion of the 

COTP when addressing the unique 

safety and security concerns of an LNG 

operation. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

Dated: February 19, 2015. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03852 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[USCG–2014–0941] 

Port Access Route Study: In the 

Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering 

Sea 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces 

three public meetings to receive 

comments on a port access route study 

(PARS) published in the Federal 

Register on December 5, 2014, under the 

title ‘‘Port Access Route Study: In the 

Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering 

Sea.’’ The goal of this study is to help 

reduce the risk of marine casualties and 

increase the efficiency of vessel traffic 

in the region. The recommendations of 

the study may lead to future rulemaking 

action or appropriate international 

agreements. 

DATES: The first meeting will be held in 

Juneau, Alaska on March 9, 2015 from 

2 p.m. to 7 p.m. The second meeting 

will be held in Anchorage, Alaska on 

March 30, 2015 from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. 

The third and final meeting will be held 

in Nome, Alaska on April 2, 2015 from 

3 p.m. to 6 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Meeting Locations: Juneau 

Meeting: Elizabeth Peratrovich Event 

Center located at 320 W. Wiloughby 

Ave, Juneau, AK 99801; Anchorage 

Meeting: Hotel Captain Cook located at 

939 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 

99501; Nome Meeting: City Of Nome 

Council Chambers located at 102 

Division St, Nome, AK 99762. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments associated with 

docket number USCG–2014–0941 using 

any one of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice of 

study or any of the meetings, call or 

email LT Kody Stitz, Seventeenth Coast 

Guard District (dpw); telephone (907) 

463–2270; email Kody.J.Stitz@uscg.mil 

or Mr. David Seris, Seventeenth Coast 

Guard District (dpw); telephone (907) 

463–2267; email David.M.Seris@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this study by submitting comments and 

related materials as well as attending a 

public meeting. All comments received 

will be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Requirement for Port Access Route 

Studies 

Under the Ports and Waterways Safety 

Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard may 

designate necessary fairways and traffic 

separation schemes (TSSs) to provide 

safe access routes for vessels proceeding 

to and from U.S. ports. 

Schematic of proposed vessel routing 

system: A chart showing the Coast 

Guard’s proposed two-way route can be 

downloaded from http://

www.regulations.gov, type ‘‘USCG– 

2014–0941’’ into the search bar and 

click search, next to the displayed 

search results click ‘‘Open Docket 

Folder’’, which will display all 

comments and documents associated 

with this docket. 

Information on Service for Individuals 

With Disabilities 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

public meeting, contact LT Kody Stitz at 

the telephone number or email address 

provided under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

Meeting Details 

All meetings are open to the public. 

The purpose of the meetings is to 

increase awareness of the PARS and to 

receive feedback and comments from 

the public regarding the PARS. Each 

meeting will begin with the Coast Guard 

meeting facilitator presenting an 

explanation of and the purpose for the 

PARS along with an overview of the 

Coast Guard’s proposed two-way route 

through the region. Public participants 

will then be able to provide comments 

and feedback to the meeting facilitator. 

Public participants are not required to 

stay for the entire meeting duration as 

the process of the meeting facilitator 

presenting the PARS information 

followed by a public comment period 

will be repeated hourly throughout the 

allotted meeting time. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES