19118 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 148, 149, and 150 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0061] 

RIN 1625–AB92 

Deepwater Ports 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

revisions to its regulations for the 

licensing, construction, design, 

equipment, and operation of deepwater 

ports, which are offshore fixed or 

floating structures, other than vessels, 

used as ports or terminals for the import 

or export of oil and natural gas. The 

proposed revisions would provide 

additional information, clarify existing 

regulations, provide additional 

regulatory flexibility, and add new 

requirements to ensure safety. The 

proposed rule would not affect the 

license to operate of any existing 

deepwater port, nor would it result in 

the licensing of any new deepwater 

port. This proposed rule furthers the 

Coast Guard’s maritime safety and 

stewardship missions. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before July 8, 2015 or must reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2012–0061 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: 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. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Kevin Tone, 

Deepwater Ports Standards Division 

(CG–OES–4), Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1441, email Kevin.P.Tone@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Executive Summary 

IV. Background 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2012–0061), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, and follow 

the instructions on that Web site. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit comments by mail 

and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. 

We will consider all comments and 

material received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, and follow 

the instructions on that Web site. 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. 

C. 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). 

D. Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the docket using one of the 

methods specified under ADDRESSES. In 

your request, explain why you believe a 

public meeting would be beneficial. If 

we decide to hold a public meeting, we 

will announce its time and place in a 

later notice in the Federal Register. 

II. Abbreviations 

ABS American Bureau of Shipping 

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management 

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

CE Certifying Entity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COA Certificate of Adequacy 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DNV Det Norske Veritas 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DWPA Deepwater Port Act of 1974 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

E.O. Executive Order 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19119 

1See 33 U.S.C. 1502(9). 

2 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

3See 6 U.S.C. 468(b). 

4See DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(75). 

5 33 U.S.C. 1503(b). 

6 49 CFR 1.93(h). 

7See 33 CFR 140.10 (excluding deepwater ports 

from the definition of an Outer Continental Shelf 

facility). 

8Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064. 

9Public Law 112–213, 126 Stat. 1540. 

10The Department of the Interior (DOI) advises 

license applicants that: (a) In accordance with 43 

U.S.C. 1334(a)(5), to the extent that a proposed 

deepwater port’s design includes subsurface storage 

on submerged lands of the Outer Continetal Shelf, 

that storage is subject to DOI’s review and approval; 

(b) As a cooperating agency during a license 

application’s processing, the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 

participate in the review of proposed deepwater 

ports; and (c) under BSEE regulations (30 CFR part 

250, subpart J), a right-of-way granted by BSEE and 

a right-of-way rental amount may be required. 

11 71 FR 57644; Sep. 29, 2006. 

12A Record of Decision states what the agency’s 

decision is; identifies all alternatives considered by 

the agency, specifies the alternative or alternatives 

which were considered to be environmentally 

preferable; and states whether all practicable means 

to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, 

why they were not. See 40 CFR 1505.2. 

FR Federal Register 

FWS National Fish and Wildlife Service 

HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

MARAD Maritime Administration 

MARPOL 73/78 International Convention 

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 

relating to that Convention 

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MSU Marine Safety Unit 

MTSA Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

OCMI Officer in Charge of Marine 

Inspection 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

PLEM Pipeline End Manifold 

PMMP Prevention, Monitoring and 

Mitigation Program 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Pub. L. Public Law 

ROD Record of Decision 

SMS Safety Management System 

SOLAS International Convention for the 

Safety of Life at Sea 

SPM–NGTS Single Point Mooring-Natural 

Gas Transfer System 

SPM–OTS Single Point Mooring-Oil 

Transfer System 

STL buoy Submerged turret loading buoy 

§ Section symbol 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Executive Summary 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

revise existing Coast Guard regulations 

for deepwater ports. A deepwater port is 

a fixed or floating manmade structure, 

or a group of structures, other than a 

vessel, located beyond State seaward 

boundaries and used or intended for use 

as a port or terminal for the 

transportation, storage, and further 

handling of oil or natural gas for 

transportation to or from any State.1 The 

proposed revisions would expedite the 

deepwater port license application 

process by capitalizing on lessons 

learned from past license applications. 

They would also address recent changes 

in the natural gas industry by allowing 

the use of deepwater ports as export 

facilities. 

The legal basis of this rulemaking is 

33 U.S.C. 1504(a) and (b), which require 

the Secretary of Transportation to issue 

regulations to implement the Deepwater 

Port Act of 1974, as amended (DWPA).2

Before 2003, the Coast Guard operated 

under the Department of Transportation, 

and the Secretary of Transportation’s 

authority under § 1504 was delegated to 

the Coast Guard in 49 CFR 1.46. When 

the Coast Guard was transferred to the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) in 2003, ‘‘the authorities and 

functions of the Secretary of 

Transportation relating’’ to the Coast 

Guard, including the Secretary of 

Transportation’s authority relating to 

deepwater ports, also were transferred 

to DHS.3 The Secretary of Homeland 

Security has delegated the Secretary’s 

regulatory authority under 33 U.S.C. 

1504 to the Coast Guard.4 The Secretary 

of Transportation’s authority to license 

deepwater ports 5 is delegated 6 to the 

Maritime Administrator. 

This NPRM proposes numerous small 

revisions to a complex regulatory 

scheme. Collectively, these revisions 

will provide applicants with additional 

information and clarity, additional 

regulatory flexibility, and new 

requirements to ensure safety. Above 

all, the revisions should help applicants 

assemble more complete applications, to 

help them meet the Coast Guard’s 

regulatory requirements within the strict 

time limitations mandated by the DWPA 

and without costly suspensions of the 

licensing process. The proposed rule 

would not affect the license to operate 

of any existing deepwater port, nor 

would it result in the licensing of any 

new deepwater port. 

This NPRM would impose no new 

regulatory costs and should help future 

license applicants receive more 

efficient, faster processing of their 

applications. Some proposed revisions 

may give applicants more flexibility 

than they have under current 

regulations. Finally, some applicants 

may benefit from proposed revisions 

that would facilitate the licensing of 

export deepwater ports. 

IV. Background 

Deepwater ports are oil or natural gas 

import or export facilities, not 

exploration, development, or 

production facilities like drilling rigs.7

Deepwater ports are subject to the 

DWPA. When the DWPA was first 

enacted, it applied only to deepwater 

ports handling oil imports. Section 106 

of the Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002 8 (MTSA) amended the 

DWPA to apply to natural gas imports 

as well. Section 312 of the Coast Guard 

and Maritime Transportation Act of 

2012 9 further amended the DWPA so 

that it now also authorizes deepwater 

ports for oil or natural gas exports. 

MARAD must license each deepwater 

port before it can be built and 

commissioned and begin operations, but 

MARAD consults the Coast Guard and 

other Federal agencies,10 as well as 

affected State governments, before 

issuing licenses. License applications 

are jointly processed by the Coast Guard 

and MARAD, and we conduct the 

necessary analysis to determine whether 

a proposed deepwater port will comply 

with the DWPA and to ensure 

compliance with other applicable laws, 

in particular the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). Also, the Coast Guard provides 

the regulatory framework governing the 

application and licensing process as 

well as the design, construction, 

equipment, and operation of deepwater 

ports. Our deepwater port regulations in 

33 CFR subchapter NN (parts 148, 149, 

and 150) were first issued in 1975, and 

were extensively revised in 2004 and 

2006 to reflect the 2002 extension of the 

DWPA to natural gas. 

Since our most recent substantive 

revision of subchapter NN,11 the Coast 

Guard has received eight applications to 

site, construct, and operate natural gas 

deepwater ports. Four applications were 

subsequently withdrawn by the 

applicants. Of the remaining four, two 

deepwater ports have been constructed, 

one has been issued a license to 

construct, and one has initial approval 

through a favorable Record of Decision 

(ROD) 12 from MARAD. All four were for 

natural gas imports. In processing these 

four applications, the Coast Guard and 

other Federal agencies have identified 

additional, specific types of information 

that are necessary to ensure a timely 

review of, and decision on, deepwater 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19120 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

13At 33 CFR 148.107(c)(3). 

14 ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 

1996). 

15 ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 

’’76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), § 6(b). 

16An application for the conversion of an existing 

import facility to one adapted for export would 

require the submission of a new application fee. 

The conversion application would need to address 

all the same issues addressed in an original 

application. 

17 ‘‘Supporting Safe and Responsible 

Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural 

Gas Resources,’’ 77 FR 23107 (Apr. 17, 2012). 

port applications. During the 

application review process, and after the 

construction and operation of new 

deepwater ports, we gained additional 

insight into the technical and 

operational requirements that will help 

ensure operations are conducted 

efficiently and in a manner that furthers 

safety, security, and environmental 

protection. The DWPA, 33 U.S.C. 

1504(g), provides a 240-day ‘‘clock’’ 

within which license applications must 

be processed (from publication of the 

notice of initial application to the final 

public hearing). To ensure compliance 

with the DWPA and NEPA, those 

wanting to build and operate a 

deepwater port must provide complex 

and highly technical information with 

their license applications. Under 33 

U.S.C. 1504(c)(1), the Coast Guard has 

21 days in which to determine whether 

an application appears to contain all the 

necessary information. If the application 

appears to be incomplete, the Coast 

Guard informs the applicant as to its 

deficiencies, and takes no further action 

until the deficiencies are corrected. If 

the application appears to be complete, 

the Coast Guard must publish a notice 

of the application and a summary of the 

plans in the Federal Register. Long after 

this initial determination of 

completeness, however, we often find 

that we need additional information to 

complete a proper analysis of the 

proposed deepwater port’s 

environmental impact, and the 

applicant is required by 33 U.S.C 

1504(c)(2)(M) to provide that 

information. Our regulations 13 make it 

clear that the need to obtain important 

additional information ‘‘stops the 

clock,’’ extending the 240-day deadline 

by the length of time needed to obtain 

the additional information. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule draws on the 

lessons we have learned about 

efficiencies in the license application 

review process and in building and 

operating safe and efficient deepwater 

ports. In developing this proposed rule, 

we have consulted with MARAD and 

other Federal agencies that work with us 

on deepwater port issues, and we will 

continue this consultation as we 

develop a final rule. 

This proposed rule would primarily 

clarify existing requirements or provide 

more information about how those 

requirements intersect with the 

requirements of other Federal agencies 

and State governments that have roles in 

the licensing and operation of 

deepwater ports. The intent of this 

proposed rule is to reduce the number 

of times the ‘‘clock is stopped’’ pursuant 

to our regulations, thereby reducing the 

time needed to reach decisions on 

applications. Although we propose a 

few new requirements, they are likely to 

impose no new regulatory costs because 

they track with industry’s current 

behavior. We also propose several 

changes that should provide industry 

with additional regulatory flexibility. 

Our proposals would apply to any 

applications received after the effective 

date of the final rule. The rule would 

not affect the license to operate any 

existing deepwater port, nor would they 

result in the licensing of any new 

deepwater port. 

The proposed rule aligns with 

directives in several Executive Orders 

(E.O.s). Section 3(a)(1) of E.O. 12988 14

requires agencies to review proposed 

regulations to eliminate drafting errors 

and ambiguity, and our proposed rule 

will clarify ambiguities that have come 

to light since we last amended our 

current regulations. Because the 

proposed rule draws on lessons learned 

from applying our current regulations, it 

helps make those regulations more 

effective and less burdensome and is 

therefore in line with E.O. 13563.15 In 

light of the recent surge in U.S. natural 

gas production, and now that the DWPA 

permits deepwater ports to export oil 

and natural gas, our proposed rule may 

also facilitate the development or 

conversion 16 of existing deepwater 

ports to export U.S. natural gas by 

clarifying the deepwater port 

application process and lessening the 

likelihood of time-consuming delays in 

that process. Therefore it may contribute 

to the job creation and economic 

benefits that are goals of E.O. 13605.17

The changes we propose for part 148 

focus on providing deepwater port 

license applicants with clearer 

information about the information we 

require, so that applicants will be less 

likely to encounter ‘‘stopped clocks.’’ 

We propose reorganizing part 149, 

which addresses the complex process of 

designing, constructing, and equipping 

deepwater ports. Other changes in part 

149 would clarify its requirements or 

adapt terminology to the reality that no 

two deepwater ports use identical 

design elements. Most of the procedural 

changes we propose would affect the 

deepwater port operations requirements 

in part 150. In addition to clarifying part 

150’s requirements and providing more 

information, we propose changes (in 

line with current industry practice) that 

would ensure that future deepwater 

ports continue to meet acceptable levels 

of safety. 

Table 1 lists each section that we 

propose adding or amending, and 

briefly explains our rationale for the 

proposal. It omits the nonsubstantive 

redesignation of specific sections as part 

of the reorganization of part 149, which 

we discuss in the table, and the 

nonsubstantive insertion of ‘‘but not 

limited to’’ in lists, to emphasize their 

non-exclusive nature. 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

PART 148 

3 ......................................... Revise descriptions of each 

agency’s authority.

Informational .................... Based on latest statutory or interagency allocation 

of functions. We would describe, not change, that 

allocation. 

5 ......................................... ‘‘Accommodation module’’ ....... Add definition ................... Term figures in proposed changes. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19121 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

‘‘Construction’’ .......................... Revise definition .............. Clarify that Coast Guard oversight applies throughout the deepwater port lifecycle by emphasizing 

that construction applies to any activity incidental 

to building, repairing, or expanding a deepwater 

port. 

‘‘Deepwater port’’ ..................... Revise definition .............. Align with current statutory language, which allows 

deepwater ports to export as well as import oil or 

natural gas. 

‘‘Deepwater port security plan’’ Add definition ................... Term figures in proposed changes. 

‘‘Engineering geological survey’’.Revise definition .............. Clarify that the necessary analysis considers all geological factors and is not limited to 

hydrographics. Coast Guard’s experience is that 

the scope of this analysis has been confusing in 

the past. 

‘‘Flexible riser and umbilical’’ ... Add definition ................... Term figures in proposed changes. 

‘‘Lease block’’ ........................... Revise definition .............. Simplify statutory citations. 

‘‘Major conversion’’ .................. Transfer definition ............ Transfer from part 149 without substantive change. 

‘‘Marine Safety Unit (MSU) 

Commander’’.

Add definition ................... Updated Coast Guard internal organization. 

‘‘Marine site’’ ............................ Revise language .............. Clarify meaning of ‘‘including.’’ 

‘‘Maritime Administration’’ ........ Revise definition .............. Updated MARAD information. 

‘‘Mile’’ ....................................... Add definition ................... Clarify that subchapter NN references to miles 

mean nautical miles. 

‘‘Operator’’ ................................ Revise definition .............. Clarify that the operator may be the licensee’s designee and not the licensee itself. 

‘‘Person in charge’’ .................. Revise definition .............. Clarify definition. 

‘‘PIC’’ ........................................ Add definition ................... Add separate definition to help distinguish ‘‘person 

in charge’’ from ‘‘PIC.’’ 

‘‘Pipeline’’ ................................. Add definition ................... Define to distinguish portion of interest to Coast 

Guard from equipment regulated by Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 

‘‘Pipeline end manifold’’ ........... Add definition ................... Define to distinguish portion of interest to Coast 

Guard from equipment regulated by Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA). 

‘‘Prevention, monitoring, and 

mitigation program’’.

Add definition ................... Term figures in proposed changes. 

‘‘Safety zone’’ ........................... Revise definition .............. Clarify that a deepwater port is the facility at issue. 

‘‘Service space’’ ....................... Transfer definition ............ Transfer from part 149 without substantive change. 

‘‘Single point mooring oil transfer system’’.Revise definition .............. Clarify and distinguish terms that are sometimes 

confused. 

‘‘Single point mooring natural 

gas transfer system’’.

Revise definition .............. Clarify and distinguish terms that are sometimes 

confused. 

‘‘Sleeping space’’ ..................... Transfer definition ............ Transfer from part 149 without substantive change. 

‘‘Submerged turret loading 

buoy’’.

Add definition ................... Term figures in proposed changes. 

‘‘Vessel’’ ................................... Revise definition .............. Conform to definition used in 1 U.S.C. 3. 

8 ......................................... Certifying entities (CEs) ........... Provide additional regulatory flexibility.Operators are currently allowed to use CEs to assist 

with post-licensing technical matters. We would 

also allow license applicants to use CEs during 

the application process, to help identify information gaps and resolve technical questions. 

105(g)(1)(i) ......................... Describe MARAD as acting in 

consultation with the Coast 

Guard, instead of the Coast 

Guard acting in concurrence 

with MARAD.

Informational .................... We would more accurately reflect MARAD’s lead 

role for matters regarding the financial responsibility of a deepwater port application. 

105(g)(2)(iii) ........................ Change ‘‘operator’’ to ‘‘licensee,’’ as the party responsible for deepwater port 

removal costs.

Clarification ...................... Financial liability rests with a deepwater port’s licensee, not with the operator, who may be only 

the licensee’s designee. 

105(i)(1) .............................. Change ‘‘is’’ to ‘‘will be’’ ........... Style ................................. Style change. 

105(j) .................................. Provide additional information 

about coastal zone management.

Informational .................... We would give license applicants more detailed information, including a reference to applicable National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

regulations, to help applicants more quickly establish compliance with 33 U.S.C. 1503(c)(9)’s requirement for an approved coastal zone management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

105(k) ................................. Provide an alternative to the 

use of a professional surveyor.

Provide additional regulatory flexibility.Delay in securing the services of a registered professional surveyor has ‘‘stopped the clock’’ in at 

least one instance. We would allow the use of 

others with equivalent professional competency. 

105(m)(1)(i) ......................... Revise provisions relating to 

fixed and floating structures.

Clarification ...................... We would delete language concerning connected 

actions, because it is redundant with the requirement in 33 CFR 148.105(l) to provide data for onshore storage areas, pipelines, and refineries. 

105(m)(1)(iii) ....................... Revise provisions relating to 

anchorages and mooring 

areas.

Clarification ...................... We would clarify that anchorages and mooring 

areas can be used during a deepwater port’s construction as well as after it becomes operational. 

105(m)(2) ............................ Revise description of required 

reconnaissance hydrographic 

survey.

Clarification ...................... We would delete some survey specifications because MARAD describes the specific information 

it requires in the license conditions it sets for individual deepwater ports. 

Allow exceptions to 5-year limit 

on age of data.

Provide additional regulatory flexibility.The proposed change would allow the use of older 

data, with Coast Guard approval, which would be 

granted so long as newer data is provided for any 

specific locations having a high degree of hydrographic variability. 

105(m)(3) ............................ Add language for meteorological and oceanographic 

(‘‘MetOcean’’) data.

Revision ........................... MetOcean data is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port’s environmental impact. If it 

is not included with the license application, we 

currently require the applicant to provide it as 

‘‘additional information’’ under 33 CFR 148.107. 

We would add the need to include MetOcean 

data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of ‘‘clock stoppage.’’ 

105(m)(4) ............................ Add language for vessel traffic 

data.

Revision ........................... Vessel traffic data is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port’s environmental impact and 

for the Coast Guard’s analysis of risk mitigation. If 

it is not included with the license application, we 

currently require the applicant to provide it as 

‘‘additional information’’ under 33 CFR 148.107. 

We would add the need to include vessel traffic 

data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of ‘‘clock stoppage.’’ 

105(n) ................................. Add language for engineering 

geological survey (presently 

soil survey) data.

Revision ........................... We would clarify that full geological information, not 

just soil data, is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port’s environmental impact. If it 

is not included with the license application, we 

currently require the applicant to provide it as 

‘‘additional information’’ under 33 CFR 148.107. 

We would add the need to include geological survey data in the initial application, to better inform 

applicants and reduce the likelihood of ‘‘clock 

stoppage.’’ 

Allow exceptions to 5-year limit 

on age of data.

Provide additional regulatory flexibility.The proposed change would allow the use of older 

data, with Coast Guard approval. 

Provide an alternative to the 

use of a professional engineer.

Provide additional regulatory flexibility.Delay in securing the services of a professional engineer has ‘‘stopped the clock’’ in at least one instance. We would allow the use of others with 

equivalent professional competency. 

105(s)(6)(iv) ........................ Add ‘‘regasification’’ to existing 

language.

Revision ........................... We would clarify that information about the methods 

the applicant expects to use in regasifying natural 

gas prior to transmission is essential for analyzing 

a proposed deepwater port’s environmental impact. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide 

it as ‘‘additional information’’ under 33 CFR 

148.107. We would add the need to include regasification data in the initial application, to better 

inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of 

‘‘clock stoppage.’’ 

105(t) .................................. Add recommendation for 

PHMSA consultation.

Informational .................... We would provide license applicants with additional 

information, and we would encourage them to 

consult with PHMSA, to help facilitate an applicant’s ability to comply with PHMSA requirements 

for pipeline safety. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19123 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

105(y) ................................. Add language for risk and consequence assessment.Informational .................... A license applicant’s risk and consequence assessment is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port’s environmental impact and is currently 

subject to Coast Guard validation. We would provide additional information about methods that the 

Coast Guard may use to conduct that validation, 

including the conduct of an independent assessment by a third party selected by the Coast 

Guard. We would also restate the Coast Guard’s 

existing authority under 33 CFR 148.107 to require the applicant to provide ‘‘additional information’’ when necessary. 

105(z) ................................. Add language for NEPA alternatives.Clarification ...................... This paragraph currently requires license applicants 

to provide an environmental analysis sufficient to 

meet the requirements of NEPA. Under NEPA, 

environmental analysis must include consideration 

of a range of reasonable alternatives to key aspects of the action being analyzed. If alternatives 

are not discussed in the initial license application, 

we currently require the applicant to provide it as 

‘‘additional information’’ under 33 CFR 148.107. 

We would clarify the need to discuss alternatives 

in the initial application, to better inform applicants 

and reduce the likelihood of ‘‘clock stoppage.’’ 

105(ff) ................................. Add language for International 

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973, as modified by the 

Protocol of 1978 relating to 

that Convention (MARPOL 

73/78).

Clarification ...................... A license to operate a deepwater port is granted 

only if it is determined that the applicant ‘‘can and 

will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and 

license conditions.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1503(c)(2). 

MARPOL, and MARPOL-implementing regulations 

in 33 CFR part 158, are applicable to deepwater 

ports, and a Certificate of Adequacy (COA) is required to demonstrate compliance with part 158. If 

the COA is not requested in the initial license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as ‘‘additional information’’ under 33 CFR 

148.107. We would clarify the need to request the 

Certificate in the initial application, to better inform 

applicants and reduce the likelihood of ‘‘clock 

stoppage.’’ 

107(b) ................................. Add references to MARAD ...... Clarification ...................... We would clarify that the Coast Guard may request 

additional information on behalf of MARAD as 

well as on the Coast Guard’s own behalf. 

107(c)–(e) ........................... Revise (c) and add (d) and (e), 

regarding ‘‘clock stoppage’’.

Clarification ...................... Paragraph (c) of this section currently allows the 

Coast Guard to suspend the processing of a license application indefinitely (‘‘stop the clock’’) in 

order to obtain additional information. We would 

provide additional information to clarify and help 

applicants better understand how ‘‘stopping the 

clock’’ works. This proposed change should be 

read along with the proposed change to 33 CFR 

148.276 and 148.283 relating to suspension and 

withdrawal of an application. 

125(c) ................................. Add ‘‘additional environmental 

analysis’’ to existing language.

Clarification ...................... Under 33 U.S.C. 1504(h)(1), license applicants must 

‘‘reimburse the United States and the appropriate 

adjacent coastal State for any additional costs incurred in processing an application.’’ We would 

add, as a clarification, the need for additional environmental analysis as an example of when additional costs will be incurred. A past applicant’s 

change in plans for the proposed deepwater port 

raised the potential need for additional environmental analysis. 

209(a) ................................. Remove reference to interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU).Informational .................... We would delete a reference to an expired MOU 

that can no longer be consulted for the current list 

of all Federal agencies involved with deepwater 

ports. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

211(a) ................................. Revise language describing the 

need for changes in applications.

Clarification ...................... This paragraph currently requires a license applicant 

to promptly notify the Coast Guard of any 

changes to its application. We would clarify that 

we consider any circumstance that makes statements in the application no longer accurate to be 

a ‘‘change’’ requiring prompt notification. 

211(b) ................................. Revise language describing 

how changes are made in 

applications.

Clarification ...................... As currently worded, this paragraph may imply that 

any substantial change requires a license applicant to completely revise its application. We 

would clarify that our existing practice generally is 

to allow the applicant simply to amend its application to make the change. 

Add language concerning 

NEPA scoping and additional 

public comment.

Informational .................... We would inform license applicants that under 

NEPA and other existing laws, a substantial 

change in an application could trigger the need 

for additional NEPA scoping or additional public 

comment on the application. 

214 ..................................... Add provision for resubmission 

of a withdrawn or denied application.

Informational .................... We would provide additional information about the 

conditions under which a license applicant can 

address concerns raised by its initial application 

and resubmit the application, with the Coast 

Guard waiving certain Subpart B application requirements for the re-application. 

215 ..................................... Redesignate (d) as (c)(5) and 

add ‘‘proposed deepwater’’ 

to existing language.

Clarification ...................... We would clarify that (d) is a continuation of (c) and 

relates to a proposed deepwater port. 

217(b)–(d) ........................... Revise description of respective Coast Guard and 

MARAD roles in the designation of an Adjacent Coastal 

State.

Informational .................... We would state that MARAD consults with the 

Coast Guard, but makes the actual Adjacent 

Coastal State designation. 

222(b) ................................. Revise description of respective Coast Guard and 

MARAD roles in giving notice 

of Adjacent Coastal State 

hearings.

Informational .................... We would clarify that MARAD, not the Coast Guard, 

has the existing responsibility for publishing notices of public hearings or meetings in Adjacent 

Coastal States. 

228 ..................................... Revise description of respective Coast Guard and 

MARAD roles with respect to 

formal evidentiary hearings.

Informational .................... We would clarify that MARAD, not the Coast Guard, 

has the existing responsibility for any formal evidentiary hearings involving deepwater ports relating to specific and material factual issues related 

to the licensing of a deepwater port. Existing 

Coast Guard regulations, 33 CFR 148.230– 

148.256, provide a regulatory framework for such 

hearings; however, because MARAD, not the 

Coast Guard, is the licensing authority, we propose deleting these regulations. 

276 ..................................... Revise section describing the 

DWPA timeline for action on 

a license application.

Informational .................... The revision would provide more information about 

the DWPA timeline for processing license applications, and about suspensions of the timeline. We 

informally provide this additional information 

today. (The revisions do not alter the statutory 

timeline.) This proposed change should be read 

along with the proposed changes to 33 CFR 

148.107 and 148.283 relating to suspension and 

withdrawal of an application. 

277(d) ................................. Provide additional information 

about the time period when 

the Governor of an Adjacent 

Coastal State may transmit 

his or her approval or disapproval of a proposed 

deepwater port application.

Informational .................... We would add more information about the existing 

timeline for the Governor of an Adjacent Coastal 

State to approve or disapprove a proposed deepwater port application. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19125 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

283 ..................................... Substitute provisions for treating an application as withdrawn for provisions concerning an application’s suspension.Procedural change .......... 33 CFR 148.107(c) and this section currently both 

provide for indefinitely suspending the processing 

of a license application if it is missing essential information. We would make it clear that, if there is 

no reasonable progress in securing the missing 

information, indefinite suspension may lead to the 

application being treated as withdrawn. This proposed change should be read along with the proposed changes to 33 CFR 148.107 and 148.276 

relating to suspension. 

405(c)(2) ............................. Refer to Bureau of Offshore 

Energy Management 

(BOEM) guidance.

Informational .................... This paragraph currently requires a license applicant 

to give notice of certain acoustic profiling activities, which must take place ‘‘within specified limits.’’ We would inform applicants that those limits 

currently are provided by BOEM guidance, thereby making it easier for applicants to determine 

what limits are specified. 

Subpart G ........................... Redesignate 33 CFR 148.600 

and 148.605 as subpart G of 

part 148.

Nonsubstantive reorganization.We would give added prominence to these two sections, which have been of interest to several license applicants. 

600 ..................................... Provide more information about 

deepwater port financial liability limits under the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 

90).

Informational .................... This section currently states that deepwater port financial liability limits are set in accordance with 

OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)). Several license 

applicants have requested more information, and 

our proposed change would provide details on the 

current process for setting limits. 

605 ..................................... Provide more information about 

deepwater port financial liability limits under OPA 90.

Informational .................... This section currently refers to the provisions of 

OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)) for adjusting a 

deepwater port’s financial liability limit. We would 

respond to several requests from license applicants for more details on the current process for 

adjusting limits. That process, with the relevant 

risk and economic analysis criteria, was described 

in the NPRM that proposed lowering the liability 

limit for the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (60 FR 

7652 at 7653, Feb. 8, 1995; final rule 60 FR 

39849, Aug. 4, 1995). 

Subpart H ........................... Redesignate current subpart G 

as new subpart H of part 148.

Nonsubstantive reorganization.This proposed change is necessitated by our proposed designation of 33 CFR 148.600 and 

148.605 as new subpart G. 

707(b) ................................. Revise ...................................... Clarification ...................... We would more closely align the wording of this 

section with terminology familiar to NEPA practitioners. We would also clarify that license applicants are currently required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans. 

707(b)(1) ............................. Provide more information about 

the scope of environmental 

evaluation.

Informational .................... We would provide license applicants with more 

complete information about the scope of environmental evaluation and align wording with terminology familiar to NEPA practitioners. 

715 intro ............................. Add ‘‘reasonable range of alternatives’’ language.Clarification ...................... We would clarify that license applicants are required 

to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to 

their proposed deepwater port plans. 

715(a) ................................. Provide more information about 

the scope of environmental 

evaluation.

Informational .................... We would provide license applicants with more 

complete information about the scope of environmental evaluation. 

725 intro ............................. Add ‘‘reasonable range of alternatives’’ language.Clarification ...................... We would clarify that license applicants are required 

to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to 

their proposed deepwater port plans. 

730 intro ............................. Add ‘‘reasonable range of alternatives’’ language.Clarification ...................... We would clarify that license applicants are required 

to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to 

their proposed deepwater port plans. 

730(a) ................................. Revise ...................................... Informational .................... This paragraph currently refers to appropriate Adjacent Coastal State agencies. We would substitute 

a specific cross reference to 33 CFR 148.105(j), 

where we propose adding detailed information 

about Adjacent Coastal States. 

735 intro ............................. Add ‘‘reasonable range of alternatives’’ language.Clarification ...................... We would clarify that license applicants are required 

to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to 

their proposed deepwater port plans. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

737 ..................................... Replace list with Web site reference.Informational .................... This section currently contains a lengthy and nonexclusive list of environmental statutes and E.O.s 

of potential interest to license applicants. We 

would replace that list with a reference to a Coast 

Guard Web site where more current information is 

maintained and available to the public. 

PART 149 

Part 149 organization ......... Reorganize ............................... Nonsubstantive reorganization.We would reorganize this part, redesignating and 

renaming some sections and providing a more sequential structure for existing deepwater port design, construction, and equipment requirements. 

Subpart A would contain general information, subpart B would contain general requirements for design, construction, operations, and equipment requirements, and the remaining subparts C 

through F would contain specific equipment requirements. 

5 ......................................... Replace definitions with cross 

reference to 33 CFR 148.5.

Nonsubstantive reorganization.This section currently contains 4 definitions. We 

would move all subchapter NN definitions to 33 

CFR 148.5. 

15 ....................................... Remove .................................... Nonsubstantive reorganization.This section currently describes the process for submitting deepwater port design or construction alterations. As part of the nonsubstantive reorganization of part 149, we would delete this section 

and transfer its substance to 33 CFR 149.54. 

20(a) (current 610(a)) ......... Add ‘‘or submerged turret loading (STL) buoy’’ to existing 

language.

Technology update .......... We would insert a reference to STL buoys, which 

are significant deepwater port components not in 

existence when we last revised our regulations, 

and the details of the construction of which we 

currently require deepwater port operators to provide. 

51 (current 615) ................. Provide for use of foreign engineers.Provide additional regulatory flexibility.We would amend paragraph (b) to allow the use of 

foreign engineers who may not be registered professional engineers, if they possess equivalent 

qualifications. 

52 (current 625) ................. Revise (b) ................................. Provide additional regulatory flexibility.We would insert a reference to CEs, reflecting our 

proposal (see table entry for 33 CFR 148.8) to 

allow greater use of CEs. 

Add (d) ..................................... Clarification ...................... We would add language from current 33 CFR 

149.650, to clarify the existing procedure by which 

a license applicant works with the Coast Guard to 

determine which deepwater port components require classification society certification. That determination will likely be different for each deepwater port, given the potential variability between 

deepwater port designs. We would also add language to encourage (but not require) early coordination between the applicant and the Coast 

Guard, because of the potential value of early coordination for expediting the design process. 

54 ....................................... Add ........................................... Nonsubstantive reorganization.We would move the text from existing § 149.15 to 

the revised subpart B to consolidate requirements 

for design into one subpart. 

57 ....................................... Add ........................................... Informational .................... We would add this section for the benefit of license 

applicants, to provide them with more information 

about our existing process for reviewing and approving a deepwater port’s design, construction, 

and commissioning. 

58 ....................................... Add ........................................... Clarification ...................... We would add this section to clarify that our existing 

practice is to allow a license applicant to use certifying entities during the design and construction 

of a deepwater port as well as after the deepwater port is licensed, and to describe the CE’s 

role in various phases of the deepwater port’s lifespan. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19127 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

63(a) (current 660(a)) ......... Substitute ‘‘manned deepwater 

port’’ for ‘‘pumping platform 

complex’’.

Clarification ...................... The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability 

because all manned deepwater ports are pumping 

platform complexes. 

64(b) (current 140(b)) ......... Add ‘‘facilities, vessels approaching the safety zone’’ 

to existing language.

Clarification ...................... Provides clarification of who the vessel would be in 

communication with to ensure communications 

are occurring between the vessel and the shoreside facility for purposes of situational awareness. 

65 intro, (b) (current 665 

intro, (b)).

Substitute ‘‘manned deepwater 

port’’ for ‘‘pumping platform 

complex’’.

Clarification ...................... The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability 

because all manned deepwater ports are pumping 

platform complexes. 

67(a) (current 675(a)) ......... Substitute ‘‘Each’’ for ‘‘For a,’’ 

remove ‘‘each pumping platform complex,’’ and substitute ‘‘deepwater port’’ for 

‘‘complex’’.

Clarification ...................... The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability 

because the one existing manned deepwater port 

is a pumping platform complex. 

68(a) (current 680(a)) ......... Add ‘‘manned’’ before ‘‘deepwater’’ in existing language.Clarification ...................... We would clarify that this requirement applies only 

to manned deepwater ports. 

70 (current 690) ................. Substitute ‘‘specified’’ for ‘‘outlined’’.Clarification ...................... The requirements are specified and are not optional, 

as ‘‘outlined’’ would imply. 

77(a) (current 697(a)) ......... Substitute ‘‘operator’s’’ for 

‘‘owner’s’’.

Clarification ...................... We would clarify that because the operator is in 

charge of day-to-day operations, the operator is 

responsible for maintaining all documentation. 

115 (current 110) ............... Substitute ‘‘remotely’’ for ‘‘from 

the pumping platform complex’’.

Clarification ...................... This section currently requires pipeline end manifolds to have shutoff valves that can be operated 

both manually and remotely from a pumping platform complex. Since not every deepwater port 

has a pumping platform complex, we would replace the reference to such a complex with the 

word ‘‘remotely.’’ 

130(a) (current 125(a)) ....... Substitute ‘‘marine transfer 

area of a deepwater port’’ for 

‘‘pumping platform complex’’.

Clarification ...................... Only the single existing manned deepwater port has 

a pumping platform complex. The proposed 

change substitutes a generic term common to 

manned or unmanned deepwater ports. 

135 (current 130) ............... In (b) introductory language 

add ‘‘described in paragraph 

(a) of this section’’.

Clarification ...................... Reference to paragraph (a) of same section. 

In (b)(1) and (b)(2) substitute 

‘‘marine transfer area of a 

deepwater port’’ for ‘‘pumping platform complex’’.

Clarification ...................... The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability 

because all marine transfer areas are pumping 

platform complexes. Revised terminology provides 

greater clarity. 

In (b)(2) add ‘‘described’’ ......... Clarification ...................... Clarification and reference to paragraph (b)(3) of the 

section. 

206 ..................................... Add ........................................... Harmonization .................. We would adapt existing lifesaving equipment requirements for mobile offshore drilling units 

(MODUs). 

302 (current 402) ............... Revise ...................................... Clarification ...................... We would transfer qualifying language from the end 

to the beginning of the section. 

303 (current 403) ............... Revise heading ........................ Clarification ...................... We would revise the heading to clarify who needs 

the information provided by this section. 

304 (current 404) ............... Revise heading ........................ Clarification ...................... We would revise the heading to clarify who needs 

the information provided by this section. 

Current 306–315 ................ Remove .................................... Nonsubstantive reorganization.These sections currently describe survival craft and 

rescue boat requirements. As part of the nonsubstantive reorganization of part 149, we would delete these sections and transfer their substance to 

33 CFR part 149, subpart D. 

315(a) (current 415(a)) ....... Substitute ‘‘manned deepwater 

port’’ for ‘‘pumping platform 

complex’’.

Clarification ...................... The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability 

because all manned deepwater ports are pumping 

platform complexes. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

410(a) (current 510(a)) ....... Substitute ‘‘Coast Guard District Commander in the area 

where the deepwater port 

will be built’’ for ‘‘Commandant (CG–5P)’’.

Clarification ...................... We would clarify that the District Commander approves applications to establish a private aid to 

navigation. 

480(a) (current 580(a)) ....... Remove ‘‘of a pumping platform complex’’.Clarification ...................... The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. 

485(a) (current 585(a)) ....... Substitute ‘‘deepwater port’’ for 

‘‘pumping platform complex’’.

Clarification ...................... The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability 

because all manned deepwater ports are pumping 

platform complexes. 

650 ..................................... Remove .................................... Clarification; Nonsubstantive reorganization.We would transfer the substance of this provision to 

§ 149.52(d), and revise it to apply to all deepwater 

ports regardless of design or cargo. 

PART 150 

10 ....................................... In (b), remove reference to part 

148 approval of manuals.

Correction ........................ We would remove this incorrect reference. Approval 

of manuals is addressed in part 150. 

Revise (c) and redesignate (d) 

and (e).

Clarification ...................... We would remove existing (c) because the process 

is described in detail in proposed § 150.25. Existing (d) and (e) would be redesignated as (c) and 

(d), respectively. 

Add new (e) ............................. Clarification ...................... The proposed change would make explicit in our 

regulations that the Coast Guard’s current practice is to review the operations manual every five 

years, in conjunction with our review of the environmental impact statement (EIS) (the Council on 

Environmental Quality recommends that, as a rule 

of thumb, the EIS be carefully reexamined no 

later than once every five years—see https://

ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/30-40.HTM#32). 

15 ....................................... In (i)(4)(vii), substitute ‘‘zones 

and areas described under 

subpart J of this part’’ for ‘‘a 

safety zone, area to be 

avoided, and anchorage 

area’’.

Clarification ...................... We would clarify that the procedures described 

must account for any protective zone or area that 

could apply, regardless of a deepwater port’s design or cargo. 

Add new (o) ............................. Informational .................... Deepwater ports are ports subject to U.S. jurisdiction and used by oceangoing tankers greater than 

400 gross tons, and as such their operators must 

comply with 33 CFR 158.135, which requires 

ports to hold certificates of adequacy (or waivers), 

evidencing their capability to receive regulated 

substances. For informational purposes, we would 

restate that requirement here. 

Revise (y) (current (x)) ............. Informational .................... Under 33 CFR 106.410 and 106.415, security plans 

must be periodically audited, and reviewed every 

5 years by the Coast Guard. For informational 

purposes, we would restate those requirements 

here. 

Revise (bb) (current (aa)) ........ Clarification ...................... This change would reflect MARAD’s current policy, 

requiring each deepwater port to maintain a prevention, monitoring, and mitigation program 

(PMMP) as a license condition. 

Add (cc) .................................... Clarification ...................... MARAD currently requires, as a license condition, 

each deepwater port to comply with 49 CFR 

192.605 and with other applicable PHMSA regulations in 49 CFR parts 190–199. We would make 

that requirement explicit in our regulations. 

25 ....................................... Revise heading ........................ Clarification ...................... We would amend for better clarity. 

Add (c)(1) ................................. Clarification ...................... We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual. 

Revise (c)(2)(current (d)) ......... Clarification ...................... We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual. 

Revise (e)(current (f)) .............. Clarification ...................... We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19129 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

Add new (f) .............................. Clarification ...................... We would make explicit the existing authority of 

other Federal agencies to propose operations 

manual amendments to the Coast Guard. 

30 ....................................... Revise ...................................... Clarification ...................... We would update Coast Guard organizational terminology and clarify what our current process is for 

coordinating with other Federal agencies. 

35 ....................................... Revise ...................................... Informational .................... Updated Coast Guard internal organization. 

40 ....................................... Add paragraph (b) .................... Nonsubstantive reorganization.We would consolidate current 33 CFR 150.40 and 

150.45 into a single section dealing with deviations from the operations manual. In new (b), we 

would update references to Coast Guard internal 

organization. 

45 ....................................... Remove .................................... Nonsubstantive reorganization.We would transfer the substance of this section to 

§ 150.40. Text from existing § 150.45 now in proposed § 150.40(b). 

50 ....................................... Revise heading ........................ Clarification ...................... The proposed change would reduce the risk of confusing a deepwater port with an Outer Continental 

Shelf facility. 

100 ..................................... Add (b) ..................................... Clarification ...................... We would make explicit the current Coast Guard 

practice of sometimes allowing, for reasons of 

government economy, representatives from other 

Federal agencies to accompany Coast Guard inspectors on inspection visits to deepwater ports. 

105 ..................................... Revise ...................................... Clarification ...................... We would clarify the existing procedure for proposing a self-inspection program; to make it clear 

that it is the operator, not the owner, who performs the duties required by this section; and to 

make explicit the existing Coast Guard regulatory 

responsibility to validate the contents and results 

of deepwater port self-inspections. 

107 ..................................... Add ........................................... Procedural change .......... We would add this section to require deepwater port 

operators to notify the Coast Guard when a Federal or State agency schedules an inspection and 

keep inspection records, both of which operators 

currently do without their being formally required. 

We would also make it explicit that, as a matter of 

government economy, Coast Guard personnel 

sometimes accompany Federal or State inspectors on inspection visits. 

110 ..................................... Add ‘‘or of changes in class 

status.’’ to existing language.

Procedural change .......... We would require deepwater port operators to notify 

us of changes in the status of classification society-approved components, which may present 

safety issues that warrant adjustment to the deepwater port’s operations. Operators currently provide this notification without being formally required to do so. 

225 ..................................... Add second sentence .............. Clarification ...................... This section currently requires appropriate training 

for deepwater port personnel. We would clarify 

our expectation, which is in line with current practice at the one existing manned deepwater port, 

that all personnel will receive basic safety training. 

380 ..................................... Substitute ‘‘ships routing measures’’ for the example ‘‘(e.g., 

no anchoring area)’’ from 

Table 150.380(a).

Clarification ...................... We would provide greater technical accuracy and 

use familiar International Maritime Organization 

terminology. 

Remove ‘‘(for example an 

SPM)’’ from Table 

150.380(a).

Clarification ...................... Because the surface components used by deepwater ports vary so widely, we would remove an 

example that may confuse some license applicants. 

Revise (b) ................................. Clarification ...................... We would update references to Coast Guard internal organization. 

435(b) ................................. Add ‘‘unless’’ clause ................ Provide additional regulatory flexibility.We would allow operations to continue during an 

electrical storm so long as they are conducted in 

compliance with appropriate safety provisions 

contained in the operations manual. 

715 ..................................... Add reference to 33 CFR 

66.01–11.

Clarification ...................... Deepwater port lights are private aids to navigation 

and therefore subject to 33 CFR 66.01–11. We 

would make that explicit in deepwater port regulations. 

720 ..................................... Add reference to 33 CFR 67.10 Clarification ...................... Would clarify that other existing Coast Guard regulations for sound signals still apply. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 33 CFR SUBCHAPTER NN—Continued 

Section Change Nature of change Discussion 

812 ..................................... Add ‘‘and the environment’’ ..... Clarification ...................... Coast Guard marine casualty regulations that currently apply to vessels and facilities, including 

deepwater ports, protect environmental safety as 

well as the safety of life and property; see, e.g., 

33 CFR 140.1, 46 CFR 4.03–1. We would make 

explicit the need to consider environmental damage in connection with this section. 

830 ..................................... Revise ...................................... Procedural change .......... This section currently requires the one existing oil 

deepwater port to report oil pollution incidents in 

accordance with 33 CFR part 135, for which the 

underlying authority may have been repealed. 

(See Coast Guard notice of inquiry, 76 FR 67385; 

Nov. 1, 2011; a follow-on rulemaking has begun 

under RIN 1625–AA03 and docket number 

USCG–2004–17697.) We would require reports to 

be made in accordance with 33 CFR part 153 

subpart B, which has reporting requirements similar to those in part 135. We would also restate the 

existing 33 CFR 135.307 requirements for the 

contents of pollution reports. 

915(a) ................................. Add ‘‘or the environment’’ ........ Clarification ...................... Coast Guard marine casualty regulations that currently apply to vessels and facilities, including 

deepwater ports, protect environmental safety as 

well as the safety of life and property; see, e.g., 

33 CFR 140.1, 46 CFR 4.03–1. We would make 

explicit the need to consider environmental damage in connection with this section. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

The Coast Guard developed this 

proposed rule after considering the 

statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking 

that are discussed in this part. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This notice 

of proposed rulemaking has been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ although not economically 

significant, under section 3(f) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

The Coast Guard proposes revisions to 

its regulations for the licensing, 

construction, design, equipment, and 

operation of deepwater ports, which are 

offshore fixed or floating structures, 

other than vessels, used as ports or 

terminals for the import or export of oil 

and natural gas. The proposed revisions 

would provide additional information, 

clarify existing regulations, provide 

additional regulatory flexibility, and 

add new requirements to ensure safety. 

One objective of the proposed rule is 

to ensure that adequate information is 

submitted with a deepwater port 

application. Through the experience of 

processing past applications, Coast 

Guard and other Federal agencies have 

identified additional, specific types of 

information that are necessary to ensure 

a timely review of, and decision on, 

deepwater port applications. For past 

applications, this additional information 

has been requested during the review 

process, causing delays in the review 

and approval of applications. Specifying 

that the additional information is 

required at the beginning of the process 

will not increase the application process 

burden, but is expected to result in more 

efficient and timely reviews of any 

future applications. 

Further, the proposed rule codifies 

various technical and operational 

requirements. During the application 

review process, and after the actual 

construction and operation of new 

deepwater ports, the Coast Guard gained 

additional insight into the technical and 

operational requirements that will help 

ensure operations are conducted 

efficiently and in a manner that furthers 

safety, security, and environmental 

protection. These technical and 

operational requirements are currently 

standard industry practice or are 

existing requirements (e.g., from another 

agency, etc.). The proposed rule 

consolidates these requirements to 

facilitate understanding and compliance 

of deepwater port owners and operators. 

Table 2 below provides a summary of 

the final rule’s costs and benefits. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE’S IMPACTS

Category Summary 

Applicability ............................................... Deepwater ports in waters beyond the territorial limits of the United States. 

Affected Population ................................... Future deepwater port applicants 3 existing deepwater ports. 

Cost Impacts ............................................. No additional costs identified. 

Benefits ..................................................... More efficient and timely reviews of deepwater port applications. 

Consolidation of technical and operating requirements for existing deepwater ports. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19131 

18http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/

0383(2014).pdf. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE’S IMPACTS—Continued 

Category Summary 

Potential cost savings from the following provisions: 

1. § 148.8 Nominate CE. 

2. § 148.105 Equivalent means of certifying accuracy of maps. 

3. § 148.707. 

4. § 149.51 Allows foreign national engineers. 

5. § 149.52 Allows for adoption of classification society standards. 

6. § 150.435 Authorizes continuation of cargo transfer operations during electrical storm. 

7. § 150.15 Limits scope of audits to modifications. 

Affected Population 

One oil deepwater port began 

operation before 2006. Since 2006, the 

Coast Guard has processed, or is 

processing, eight deepwater port 

applications to site, construct, and 

operate deepwater ports. After review of 

those applications, two LNG deepwater 

ports have been constructed, one has 

been issued a license to construct, and 

one has initial approval through a 

favorable ROD from MARAD. The 

applicants for the other four 

applications have withdrawn their 

applications. The population of 

currently operating deepwater ports is 

three: the one pre-2006 oil port and two 

LNG ports. 

The potential number of additional 

deepwater port applications over the 

next 10 years is dependent on changing 

market conditions and economic forces. 

The existing deepwater ports were built 

when the forecasts for imports of LNG 

to the United States, such as those made 

by the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), were predicting 

high levels of LNG imports. With recent 

changes in the natural gas and oil 

markets, EIA now projects continued 

decline in LNG imports and increasing 

volumes of LNG exports.18 The financial 

and technical feasibility of using 

deepwater ports for LNG exports has not 

yet been demonstrated, making a 

projection of the number of future 

deepwater port applications difficult. 

The Coast Guard, for the purpose of this 

rulemaking, estimates that it will 

receive at least one future deepwater 

port application in the next 10 years, 

based on the one entity that has 

expressed interest in submitting a new 

application. The Coast Guard is 

proposing changes to enhance the 

efficiency and timeliness of any future 

applications. 

Costs 

Table 3 details numerous proposed 

changes in the regulation with an 

assessment of the cost impacts of the 

change. These changes fall into the 

following categories: 

• May result in possible time or cost 

savings as they allow for greater 

flexibility in complying with existing 

requirements. 

• Clarify information to be submitted 

with the deepwater port application. 

These information requirements do not 

result in additional costs to industry as 

this information has been required 

under existing 33 CFR 148.107 in the 

past during application processing and 

review. Based on experience with each 

of the previous applicant reviews, the 

Coast Guard has consistently requested 

this information at some point in the 

processing of the application. The 

proposed regulatory changes clarify that 

the information is required up front to 

allow for the more timely review of the 

application, thus saving the applicant 

the time and expense of additional 

submissions. 

• Implementation may be optional. 

• Clarify the Coast Guard’s existing 

need for certain additional information 

that it specifies during the license 

process and which the license applicant 

provides; the intended impact of the 

clarification is to notify the applicant 

that, in the interest of expeditious 

processing of the application, this 

information should be provided up 

front. As the information is already 

being provided, there is no new cost 

impact. 

• May be administrative and would 

not result in costs. Many of these 

changes clarify the relationship between 

various Federal agencies with 

responsibility for deepwater ports 

application, licensing, and review. 

These types of changes do not impose 

any behavioral changes by applicants of 

deepwater ports. These changes are 

labeled ‘‘Administrative,’’ described as 

clarifications, and will have no cost 

impact. Other ‘‘Administrative’’ 

proposed changes reword definitions or 

delete outdated references. 

Overall, Coast Guard has not identified 

additional costs associated with 

complying with the proposed rule, and 

sees potential for some minor cost 

savings. Table 3 provides a detailed list 

of the changes proposed by the Coast 

Guard. The changes with potential cost 

savings include the following: 

• Proposed § 148.8 allows an 

applicant to nominate a CE during the 

application processing phase. Currently, 

an applicant nominates a CE later in the 

application process. By allowing the 

nomination earlier, we believe that the 

applicants will have potential cost 

savings by identifying potential 

problems or challenges earlier in the 

process rather than later, when more 

work has been done on the application. 

• Proposed § 148.105 allows for 

equivalent means of certifying the 

accuracy of maps. Applicants have 

experienced delays when certified 

geologists were not available to certify 

the accuracy of maps. The Coast Guard 

had no alternative but to stop the clock, 

often delaying application processing by 

several months. The intent of this 

proposed revision is to permit the use 

of specialists who do not possess a 

professional certification, but are able to 

provide proof of equivalent technical 

expertise and experience, to certify 

work studies and reports required to 

satisfactorily process a deepwater port 

application. Allowing certifications by 

technical personnel possessing alternate 

credentialing will help to eliminate 

extensive delays in projects, waiting for 

expertise that is limited and in high 

demand. Also, proposed § 148.105 

allows for the use of data older than 5 

years under certain conditions. Use of 

older data could result in potential cost 

savings due to the avoidance of 

gathering new data. 

• Proposed § 148.214 allows for 

resubmission of a modified application 

without incurring a fee. Under the 

existing process, an application can be 

re-submitted after modification, but the 

applicant must pay the filing fee. 

• Proposed § 149.51 allows foreignnational engineers to submit design and 

construction plans on behalf of the 

licensee. The potential cost savings 

come from the flexibility of allowing the 

applicant to contract services from a 

larger pool of engineers. The applicant 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

may have existing relationships with 

foreign engineers as the construction of 

LNG ports is multinational. Thus, the 

expertise of the foreign engineer may 

allow for more rapid review, greater 

institutional knowledge, and prior 

professional relationships which could 

result in potential cost savings. 

• Proposed § 149.52 allows for 

adoption of classification society 

standards. Many maritime companies 

rely on classification standards to satisfy 

insurance, safety management system 

(SMS), and other requirements. The 

Coast Guard’s adoption of classification 

society standards eliminates the 

potential for duplicate effort. The Coast 

Guard recognizes that work already 

completed by a classification society 

can be used in the application process. 

An example is the APL submerged 

turret loading buoy system to import 

natural gas. The first natural gas 

deepwater port was Gulf Gateway, 

which used the APL submerged turret 

loading buoy system. There were no 

existing classification standards that 

addressed these types of ports or their 

components. Classification societies 

(American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) 

and Det Norske Veritas (DNV)) had to 

develop standards as the post-licensing 

review and approval process was taking 

place. Additional review on the part of 

the Coast Guard to grant equivalency 

approvals for some major port 

components and systems (emergency 

alarms, shutoffs, etc.) caused some 

delays in schedule. The classification 

societies have developed a highly 

detailed body of information on the 

submerged turret loading buoy-type 

deepwater ports, as well as practical 

experience with the actual deepwater 

port operations. This information, 

adopted as classification society 

standards, will improve and expedite 

the post-licensing engineering review 

and approval process. 

• Proposed § 150.435 authorizes 

continuation of cargo transfer operations 

during an electrical storm. The potential 

cost savings derives from the ability to 

continue safe operations during certain 

electrical storms in accordance with the 

deepwater port’s plans. The LNG port 

operators have stated that they cannot 

shut down operations during electrical 

storms as this will lead to potentially 

hazardous situations due to static 

electricity build-up. 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

§ 148.3 What Federal agencies are responsible for implementing the Deepwater Port Act? 

Clarify the Coast Guard’s role as the lead agency responsible for preparing the environmental impact analysis under NEPA, compliance with NEPA and other 

relevant environmental laws, and matters relating to 

navigation safety and security, engineering and safety 

standards, and facility inspections.

Administrative: Clarification 

of existing role.

No cost. 

PHMSA is the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the 

construction and operation of pipeline components of 

a deepwater port.

Administrative: Clarification 

of existing authority of 

PHMSA.

No cost. 

Expands the description of responsibilities for the Coast 

Guard and cooperating Federal agencies.

Administrative: Clarification 

of existing authority of 

cooperating Federal 

agencies.

No cost. 

Delete the reference to an expired Interagency MOU between the Coast Guard and MARAD.Administrative: Deletion of 

outdated reference.

No cost. 

§ 148.5 How are terms used in this subchapter defined? 

Definition clarifies the requirements of a security plan’s 

scope and contents and would align with 33 CFR subchapter H.

Administrative: Definition .... No cost. 

Definition specifies the components that comprise the 

flexible riser and umbilical portion of a STL buoy system.

Administrative: Definition .... No cost. 

Moved from § 149.5 .......................................................... Administrative: Move .......... No cost. 

Definition clarifies that the operator of a deepwater port 

may be either the person who receives the license to 

operate (licensee), or the licensee’s designated representative who is responsible for the day to day operation of the deepwater port.

Administrative: Definition .... No cost. 

Definition clarifies jurisdictional boundaries regarding 

Federal agency oversight of deepwater pipelines between the Coast Guard and PHMSA regarding oversight of deepwater port pipelines.

Administrative: Definition .... No cost. 

Definition clarifies that the PLEM includes the last downstream valve prior to the deepwater port pipeline.Administrative: Definition .... No cost. 

Definition to account for a new proposed post-licensing 

requirement.

Administrative: Definition .... No cost. 

Moved from § 149.5 .......................................................... Administrative: Move .......... No cost. 

Moved from § 149.5 .......................................................... Administrative: Move .......... No cost. 

Definition distinguishes between deepwater ports that 

use STL buoys to affect cargo transfer and deepwater 

ports that use single point moorings for cargo transfer 

operations.

Administrative: Definition .... No cost. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19133 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

§ 148.8 How are certifying entities designated and used for purposes of this subchapter? 

Allows the applicant to nominate a CE during the application processing phase in order to begin the technical review necessary for the approval of design, 

construction, installation, operation, maintenance and 

decommissioning plans for any proposed deepwater 

port.

Administrative: Provides 

flexibility in nominating 

CE earlier in process.

Possible time and cost savings. The CE can be nominated and chosen during MARAD evaluation period 

rather than waiting until after the ROD, allowing an 

earlier start to certification. The CE could begin a 

technical review during MARAD evaluation period to 

identify potential problems and solutions before work 

has progressed further on an application. 

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application? 

Clarifies that MARAD, and not the Coast Guard, is the 

lead agency responsible for matters regarding the 

DWPA financial responsibility aspect of a deepwater 

port application.

Administrative: Clarification 

of MARAD and the Coast 

Guard’s existing roles re: 

DWPA financial responsibility.

No cost. 

Removes and replaces ‘‘operator’’ with ‘‘licensee’’ as the 

responsible party for costs associated with removal of 

port components.

Administrative: Clarification 

of who is financially responsible party.

No cost. 

Clarifies that the applicant must provide with its application a completed consistency certification stating that 

the proposed deepwater port complies with each affected State’s Coastal Management Program per 15 

CFR part 930, subpart D.

Administrative: Clarification 

of need for consistency 

certificate to comply with 

existing Coastal Zone 

Management Program requirements.

No cost. 

Allows an applicant to provide an equivalent means of 

certifying the accuracy of the leasing maps or protraction diagrams, as an alternative to using a professional surveyor.

Administrative: Provides 

flexibility in means of certifying accuracy of maps 

and diagrams.

Possible time and cost savings. As the Coast Guard 

processed applications, it became aware of the limited availability of registered professional surveyors 

authorized to certify Outer Continental Shelf leasing 

maps or protraction diagrams. This resulted in delays 

in application processing. By allowing for equivalent 

means of certification, this proposed change would 

broaden the spectrum of persons who would be able 

to provide the necessary professional competency to 

certify the accuracy or correctness of the leasing 

maps or protraction diagrams, and minimize delays in 

application processing. 

Requires the site plan showing proposed anchorage and 

mooring areas to also include areas associated with 

construction and installation of deepwater port components (e.g., pipelaying) in addition to deepwater port 

operations.

Clarifies information needed 

to support application.

No cost. Information has been required from all past 

applicants. Clarifying information needed up front 

does not result in additional cost but instead helps 

prevent delays. 

Allow exceptions to 5-year limit on age of data for certain hydrographic data.Administrative: Provides 

flexibility by allowing the 

use of data older than 5 

years under certain circumstances.

Potential time and cost savings. The proposed change 

would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard 

approval. Use of older information may result in costs 

avoided to develop new data. 

Requires an applicant to provide MetOcean data that includes prevailing winds, currents, waves and storm 

history in the affected area of the proposed deepwater 

port site.

Clarifies information needed 

to support application.

No cost. Information has been required from all past 

applicants. Clarifying information needed up front 

does not result in additional cost but instead helps 

prevent delays. 

Requires an applicant to provide vessel traffic data to 

support analysis of navigational safety and security 

hazards.

Clarifies information needed 

to support application.

No cost. Information has been required from all past 

applicants. Clarifying information needed up front 

does not result in additional cost but instead helps 

prevent delays. 

Clarifies that geological survey data includes not just soil 

analysis, but also the overall physical characteristics 

of the ocean bottom (e.g., soil mechanics).

Clarifies information needed 

to support application.

No cost. Information has been required from all past 

applicants. Clarifying information needed up front 

does not result in additional cost but instead helps 

prevent delays. 

Formalizes the independent risk and consequence assessment process that has been customarily submitted as a supplement to the application.Clarifies information needed 

to support application.

No cost. Formalizes existing process (information already submitted as a supplement). 

Requires the applicant to identify in the environmental 

evaluation section of the application a reasonable 

range of alternatives to the proposed action to include 

deepwater port location, pipeline routes and landfall 

locations (if applicable), construction methods, and 

deepwater port design and technologies used during 

operations.

Clarifies information needed 

to support application.

No cost. Information has been required from all past 

applicants. Clarifying information needed up front 

does not result in additional cost but instead helps 

prevent delays. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

Requires the applicant to include in the deepwater port 

application a request for a COA as defined at 33 CFR 

158.120 or a request for waiver if compliance is impracticable or unreasonable.

Clarifies information needed 

to support application.

No cost. Information already compiled and submitted by 

all applicants to comply with MARPOL and APPS. 

§ 148.107 What happens if I supplement my application? 

Allows for suspension of timeline if information required 

is not provided in a timely manner.

Administrative: Formalizes 

existing process for suspending timeline.

No cost. Existing process for suspending timelines already in use when applicable. 

Superseded ....................................................................... Administrative: Removes 

and replaces with (d) and 

(e).

No cost. 

Superseded ....................................................................... Administrative: Removes 

and replaces with (d) and 

(e).

No cost. 

Superseded ....................................................................... Administrative: Removes 

and replaces with (d) and 

(e).

No cost. 

Replaces (2) ..................................................................... Administrative: Formalizes 

existing process for suspending timeline.

No cost. 

Replaces (3) ..................................................................... Administrative: Formalizes 

existing process for suspending timeline.

No cost. 

§ 148.125 What are the application fees? 

Adds environmental analysis as examples of costs for 

application and post-license review.

Administrative: Adding environmental analysis as example.No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Clarifies 

current practice when processing deepwater port applications that costs for environmental analyses must 

be paid by applicant prior to commencing operation 

of deepwater port. 

§ 148.209 How is the application processed? 

Removes reference to outdated MOU ............................. Administrative: Removes 

reference to outdated 

MOU.

No cost. 

§ 148.211 What must I do if I need to change my application? 

Formalizes process in the case of a significant change 

or required information.

Administrative: Formalizes 

existing process.

No cost. 

§ 148.214 May I resubmit my application? 

Formalizes process for re-submittal of application. Allows for resubmission of application with no filing fee.Administrative: Formalizes 

process to allow for resubmittal of application.

Potential cost savings. Formalizes process that allows 

for resubmission of modified application with no filing 

fee. 

§ 148.217 How can a State be designated as an Adjacent Coastal State? 

States that MARAD determines whether a State should 

be considered an Adjacent Coastal State, and that 

MARAD, in consultation with the Coast Guard, would 

designate the Adjacent Coastal States.

Administrative: Clarifies respective duties of Coast 

Guard and MARAD.

No cost. 

§ 148.228 What if a formal evidentiary hearing is necessary? 

Establishes procedures to be used for a formal evidentiary hearing.Administrative: Provides 

procedures for existing 

hearings.

No cost. 

Removes (b)–(d) ............................................................... Administrative: Removes 

superseded requirements.

No cost. 

§§ 148.230 through 148.256 

Removes ........................................................................... Administrative: Removes 

superseded requirements.

No cost. 

§ 148.276 What is the timeline for approving or denying an application? 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19135 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

Describes timeline for action on a license including the 

publishing of a notice of application.

Administrative: Clarifies timing for publication of notice of application.No cost. 

Describes MARAD public hearings in Adjacent Coastal 

States.

Administrative: Clarifies 

process for Adjacent 

Coastal State public 

hearings.

No cost. 

§ 148.283 When may the application process be stopped and an application be treated as withdrawn? 

Clarifies that MARAD and Commandant will provide a 

joint written notice to the applicant of action taken 

under this section.

Administrative: Clarification 

of joint written notice procedure.

No cost. 

Clarifies when a suspended application is considered 

withdrawn.

Administrative: Substitutes 

‘‘withdrawn’’ for ‘‘suspended’’ to describe 

when an application process is stopped.

No cost. 

§ 148.405 What are the procedures for notifying the Commandant (CG–5P) of proposed site evaluation and pre-construction testing? 

Clarifies that BOEM guidelines for geological and geophysical surveys should be applied when the applicant 

plans to use bottom and sub-bottom acoustic profiling 

during deepwater port site evaluation and pre-construction activities.

Information for submission 

with application: Clarifies 

use of BOEM guidelines 

for certain data.

No cost. Does not add a new requirement, but clarifies 

what standards would be sufficient for the Coast 

Guard to properly evaluate an applicant’s deepwater 

port site evaluation and pre-construction testing 

plans. Applicants currently use BOEM guidelines. 

§ 148.605 What are the procedures under OPA 90 for adjusting a deepwater port’s limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)? 

Clarifies that Coast Guard may lower the OPA 90 limit of 

liability for deepwater ports under 33 U.S.C. 

2704(d)(2) on a port-by-port basis, after evaluating oil 

spill risk and economic analyses.

Administrative: Clarifies 

process for existing authority for CG to lower 

the OPA 90 limit of liability for deepwater ports.

No cost. Explains process to lower oil spill liability limits. Requires no change of behavior. 

Discusses that the OPA 90 limit of liability of a deepwater port will not be reduced to less than $50 million, 

and may be increased following a reduction, as the 

Coast Guard deems appropriate, if the design, construction, or operation of the deepwater port changes, 

or if oil spill incidents related to the deepwater port, or 

to deepwater ports generally, indicate that a higher 

limit is needed.

Administrative: Sets minimum level for OPA 90 

limit of liability adjustments and describes 

process for increases as 

appropriate.

No cost. Explains OPA 90 liability adjustments. Requires no change of behavior. 

Describes that requests for adjustments to the OPA 90 

deepwater port limit of liability may be submitted with 

a license application or upon receipt of a license from 

MARAD to construct and operate the proposed deepwater port.

Administrative: Clarifies 

process for existing authority for CG to lower 

OPA 90 limit of liability.

No cost. Explains OPA 90 liability adjustments. Requires no change of behavior. 

Describes the contents of requests to adjust the limit of 

liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2), including a risk 

analysis of the deepwater port to determine its maximum most probable oil discharge and an economic 

analysis to determine the removal costs and damages 

of such a spill.

Additional Information: Lists 

information required to 

support an adjustment to 

liability.

No cost. The industry is currently required by OPA 90 

to perform this risk analysis. 

§ 148.707 What type of criteria will be used in an environmental evaluation and how will they be applied? 

(b) Expands the list of resource areas which will be considered in the environmental impact analysis to include, without being limited to, threatened species; 

marine protected areas; marine, coastal, and migratory birds; marine mammals; and fisheries.

Additional Information: 

Clarifies existing requirements for NEPA submissions.

No cost. The intent of this revision is to clarify that the 

existing NEPA and DWPA requirements must be 

met. This has always been required under NEPA and 

DWPA in order to develop and publish the EIS, and 

to initiate Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation w/NFMS & FWS. 

148.715 How is an environmental review conducted? 

Adds the following to the existing list of factors: geographic relevance, age of data, and methods of data 

analysis.

Administrative: Specifies 

data already required and 

data quality for Coast 

Guard review.

No cost. 

§ 148.737 What environmental statutes must an applicant follow? 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

Removes the list of environmental statutes and executive orders and replaces it with a reference to the list 

on the Commandant Web site.

Administrative: Replaces 

list of statutes with reference to Web site so list 

can be kept current.

No cost. 

§ 149.5 What definitions apply to this part? 

Moves to definitions section 148.5 ................................... Administrative: Moved ........ No cost. 

§ 149.15 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications affecting the design and construction of a deepwater port? 

Contains procedures for preparation and submission of 

plans pertaining to design, construction and operation 

of the deepwater port, and the Coast Guard’s review 

and approval of these proposed plans.

Administrative: Removed to 

§ 149.54.

No cost. 

§ 149.20 What must the District Commander be notified of and when? 

Adds that the District Commander must be notified of 

the construction of a STL buoy.

Administrative: Clarifies existing practice by adding 

STL buoy.

No cost. Current industry practice that all STL buoy applicants notify District Commander. 

§ 149.51 What construction drawings and specifications are required? 

Allows a foreign national engineer, possessing qualifications equivalent to those required in the United States 

for a professional engineer, to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee.

Qualifications: Allows equivalent qualifications for 

foreign national engineer.

Potential cost savings due to flexibility. 

§ 149.52 What are the design standards? 

Clarifies what the appropriate classification society requirements are for deepwater ports. This proposed 

change would be added to explicitly allow for the 

adoption of classification society standards generally 

used within the offshore industry that are at least 

equivalent to rules established by any recognized 

classification society recognized by the Coast Guard.

Classification standards: Allows the use of classification society standards as 

generally used within the 

industry.

Provides alternative for compliance that has potential 

cost savings due to use of existing industry classification society standards by recognizing work already completed by a classification society, eliminating the potential for duplicating effort. 

§ 149.54 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications affecting the design, construction, and operations of a

deepwater port? 

Moved from another section ............................................. Administrative: Moves existing text from other section.No cost. 

§ 149.57 What is the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning for Deepwater Ports for operation? 

Provides standardization of the deepwater port commissioning process, ensures all levels of the Coast Guard 

with deepwater port responsibilities are appraised of a 

deepwater port’s pending operational approval, and 

clarifies for the licensee the identity of the responsible 

Coast Guard official with daily operational oversight.

Administrative: Describes 

process, clarifies responsibilities.

No cost. Uses existing Coast Guard resources. 

§ 149.58 What is the role of the certifying entity in the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning 

for Deepwater Ports for operation? 

Describes the scope and duration of a CE’s responsibility during each phase of design, construction, and 

operations, and would apply to all nominated CEs 

whether nominated under proposed § 148.8 or not.

Certifying entity: Describes 

scope and duration of CE 

responsibility.

No cost. Current industry practice. Clarifies the role of 

the technical contractor they have already been employing to develop the application to assume the role 

as CE for the design, construction, installation, and 

commencement of deepwater port operations. 

§ 149.115 What are the requirements for pipeline end manifold shutoff valves? 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19137 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

Revises to indicate that the PLEM’s shutoff valve must 

be operable from a remote location because that capability must be available for operations on unmanned 

deepwater ports as well as during emergencies.

Equipment requirement: 

Pipeline end manifold’s 

shutoff valve must be operable from remote location.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Remotely-operated shutoff valves are already required 

to be installed on all currently active deepwater ports. 

(i.e., 49 CFR 193 (PHMSA) for LNG deepwater 

ports), as well as be designed and maintained in accordance with Classification Society Rules (ABS and 

DNV). 

§ 149.206 What are the requirements for survival craft and rescue boats? 

Aligns the requirements for survival craft and rescue 

boats for manned deepwater ports with Coast Guard 

requirements for survival craft and rescue boats for 

MODUs in 46 CFR 108.520–108.575.

Survival craft: Aligns requirements with MODU 

CFRs.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. LOOP is 

the only manned deepwater port and is currently 

equipped w/SOLAS-compliant survival craft, thus already complying with this regulation change. The 

cost for operating and maintaining these craft is already factored into port operational budget. Future 

manned deepwater ports are also expected to comply with SOLAS survival craft requirements. 

§ 149.306 through 149.315. 

Removes sections ............................................................ Administrative: Removed ... No cost. 

§ 150.10 What are the general requirements for operations manuals? 

To ensure operations manuals are subject to continuous 

review and reflect the deepwater port’s actual operational profile, the Coast Guard proposes in 

§ 150.10(e) to establish a 5-year cycle for the operator 

to re-submit the operations manual to the Commandant (CG–5P) to be re-reviewed and re-approved. 

This 5-year review cycle would coincide with the existing 5-year environmental baseline reassessment requirement found at § 150.15(bb).

Operations manual: 5-year 

cycle to resubmit operational manual for review.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice and recognizes established procedure. Deepwater port operators have been submitting their operations manuals 

on a 5-year cycle for nearly 10 years to comply with 

MTSA requirements, permits, and requirements from 

other Federal agencies. 

§ 150.15 What must the operations manual include? 

Require that the operations manual include either the 

deepwater port’s COA that certifies the deepwater port 

meets the requirements for reception facilities as required under 33 CFR part 158, or to include a waiver 

of the COA issued by the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority.

Operations manual: Specifies inclusion of existing 

COA in manual.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. 

Comprehensive audit program to ensure that the deepwater port operator has an approved and regularly reviewed deepwater port security plan. To help fulfill this 

verification requirement, the Coast Guard would implement an annual audit program for deepwater ports 

that would align with, and the report of audit results 

would be an attachment to, the annual self-inspection 

report that the operator is already required to provide 

to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority as specified 

at § 150.105. This proposed requirement would allow 

the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority to verify that the deepwater 

port operator has the necessary personnel and procedures in place to respond to a security incident in a 

manner that adequately protects the deepwater port, 

human health, and the environment.

Audit program for port security plan: Establishes a 

requirement for annual 

audit of port security 

plan. Results are submitted as attachment to 

existing annual self-inspection report.

No cost. The deepwater port security plan is a subset 

of the operations manual. As stated above, LOOP 

and the LNG deepwater port operators are already 

employing contractors to conduct and produce port 

security assessments and to update the operations 

and security plans as needed. This regulatory revision is formalizing what is current industry practice 

and meets the approval of the cognizant COTP. 

Establishes that the deepwater port security plan must 

be audited if there is a change in ownership or operations of the deepwater port, or if there have been 

modifications to the deepwater port.

Audit program for port security plan: Establishes 

requirement for audit of 

security plan if there is a 

change in ownership, operations or modification 

to the port.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Existing 

Coast Guard deepwater port regulations (§ 150.15(x)) 

require the operator to maintain a security plan 

‘‘comparable to part 106.’’ Part 106, in turn, requires 

the security plan to be audited annually and to be 

submitted to Coast Guard for re-approval every 5 

years. No currently operating deepwater port has had 

more than annual audits. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

Limits the scope of audits of the port security plan to 

only those sections affected by the modifications.

Audit program for port security plan: Clarifies existing requirements in 

106.415(b)(3).

No cost. Clarifies existing requirements in 

106.415(b)(3). 

Requires submittal of the proposed amendment to the 

cognizant Sector Commander or MSU Commander 

with COTP and OCMI authority, with copy to the Commandant for review and approval.

Audit program for port security plan: Establishes 

process if audit results 

require amendment.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Existing 

Coast Guard deepwater port regulations (§ 150.15(x)) 

require the operator to maintain a security plan 

‘‘comparable to part 106.’’ Part 106, in turn, requires 

the security plan to be audited annually and to be 

submitted to Coast Guard for re-approval every 5 

years. 

Establishes that the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority will normally 

perform an annual security inspection to verify the 

findings in the audit. The Sector Commander or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI authority will perform a more detailed deepwater port security plan review at prescribed 5-year intervals following initial approval of the deepwater port security plan and will include onsite inspection of personnel assignments and 

qualifications, observance of security drills, and other 

security exercises as necessary.

Security plans: Establishes 

requirement for Sector 

Commander or MSU 

Commander with COTP 

and OCMI authority to 

perform annual security 

inspection and 5-year security plan review.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Existing 

Coast Guard deepwater port regulations (§ 150.15(x)) 

require the operator to maintain a security plan 

‘‘comparable to part 106.’’ Part 106, in turn, requires 

the security plan to be audited annually and to be 

submitted to Coast Guard for re-approval every 5 

years. 

Adopts the use of a formal PMMP. Currently, every licensed deepwater port has a PMMP as a condition of 

the MARAD-issued license by making the PMMP a requirement of the operations manual.

Operations manual: Requires that existing 

PMMP be incorporated 

as part of the operations 

manual.

No cost. Current industry practice as every deepwater 

port has a PMMP to get a license. This also harmonizes with MARAD requirements. 

Requires the operator to develop a manual that addresses deepwater port pipeline operations, maintenance 

and emergencies. This manual, which would be an 

appendix to the operations manual, would incorporate 

procedures that meet the requirements of PHMSA 

regulations.

Procedural manual for pipelines: Requires development of a procedures 

manual for pipelines incorporating existing 

PHMSA requirements.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice and is 

also currently required as a condition of the MARADissued license for PHMSA approval. Has been submitted by all applicants for deepwater ports. 

§ 150.25 When will the Coast Guard require amendments to the operations manual? 

Amends the regulation to clarify that if the responsible 

Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP 

and OCMI authority determines that the licensee’s 

proposed amendments to the operations manual are 

inadequate, the COTP may return the proposed 

amendments to the licensee for revision.

Administrative: Clarifies responsibility of Sector 

Commander or MSU 

Commander with COTP 

and OCMI authority with 

respect to operations 

manual amendments.

No cost. 

Explicitly enables other Federal agencies to propose 

amendments of the operations manual to Commandant.

Administrative: Enables 

other Federal agencies to 

propose amendments to 

operations manual.

No cost. 

§ 150.30 How may the licensee propose an amendment to the operations manual? 

Adds new paragraph (a) to state that the applicant must 

provide Commandant with a copy of the proposed 

amendment. Commandant would then notify MARAD 

prior to approval of significant changes to the deepwater port’s operations.

Amendment to Operations 

Manual: Process for submittal and notification of 

amendment.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These 

types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and 

approval are already routinely submitted electronically to Coast Guard. 

§ 150.100 What are the requirements for inspecting deepwater ports? 

Adds new paragraph (b) to affirm that other Federal 

agency representatives may accompany Coast Guard 

personnel during an inspection of a deepwater port to 

verify compliance in those areas of operations over 

which each agency has jurisdiction.

Administrative: Clarifies that 

representatives from 

other Federal agencies 

can accompany Coast 

Guard personnel during 

an inspection.

No cost. 

§ 150.105 What are the requirements for annual self-inspection? 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19139 

TABLE 3—ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Description of change Type of change Cost impact 

Revises the procedures for development and approval of 

a deepwater port self-inspection program by which 

deepwater ports may, prior to commencement of operations, submit a self-inspection program to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority for consideration and approval.

Self-inspection Program: 

Clarifies existing procedures for development of 

self-inspection program.

No cost. Clarifies existing procedures for development 

of self-inspection program. 

Requires that the responsible Sector Commander or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority 

validate the results of each inspection. If the Sector 

Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and 

OCMI authority determines the deepwater port is not 

operating in conformity with its operations manual or 

license, the Sector Commander or MSU Commander 

with COTP and OCMI authority must direct appropriate corrective action and notify Commandant (CG– 

5P) and, if there is a possible violation of a license 

condition, notify MARAD.

Administrative: Clarifies 

procedures for validation 

of inspections.

No cost. 

§ 150.107 What notice must be given in the event of inspections? 

Requires that the operator notify the responsible Sector 

Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and 

OCMI authority when a Federal or State agency 

schedules an inspection, and retain the record of results of any Federal or State agency inspection, and 

make those records available for review upon request 

from the responsible Sector Commander or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI authority or his or 

her designated representative.

Notification of inspection: 

Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU 

Commander with COTP 

and OCMI authority of 

Federal or State inspection and retain records of 

inspections.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These 

types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and 

approval are already routinely submitted to Coast 

Guard. 

§ 150.110 What are the notification requirements upon receipt of classification society certifications? 

Requires that the deepwater port operator notify the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander 

with COTP and OCMI authority of any changes to the 

deepwater port’s classification status to ensure the 

deepwater port’s operations are carried out in a manner that is safe for personnel and protective of the environment.

Notification of classification 

status: Operator must notify Sector Commander or 

MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority of changes to classification status.

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These 

types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and 

approval are already routinely submitted to Coast 

Guard. 

§ 150.225 What training and instruction are required? 

Ensures that all employees, regardless of status, receive 

basic safety training as soon as practicable after reporting to the deepwater port.

Training: Requires that all 

employees receive basic 

safety training.

No cost. Consolidates existing training requirements 

that are currently scattered throughout part 150. All 

deepwater ports currently require basic safety training for all crew and persons other than crew on 

deepwater ports. 

§ 150.435 When are cargo transfers not allowed? 

Authorizes continuation of cargo transfers during an 

electrical storm in the vicinity of the deepwater port so 

long as the operations manual contains approved procedures, with which the deepwater port operator is in 

compliance, to ensure the safety of personnel, equipment and the environment.

Cargo transfers: Allows 

continuation of cargo 

transfers during electrical 

storms if certain procedures are used.

Potential cost savings due to flexibility in continuing operations. Also, LNG ports must maintain operations 

to avoid possible hazardous situations. 

§ 150.830 Reporting a pollution incident. 

Requires that the person in charge report oil pollution incidents involving a deepwater port according to 

§§ 135.305 and 135.307.

Notification of oil pollution 

incidents: Requires that 

person in charge report 

oil pollution incidents.

No cost. Already required in § 135.307. 

Benefits 

The benefits of the proposed rule are 

summarized below. See Table 4 for 

more detailed marginal benefit analysis. 

Part 148 

The main purpose of the revisions to 

33 CFR part 148 in this proposed rule 

is to clarify the deepwater port 

application process. The roles of the 

Coast Guard, MARAD, BOEM, and other 

Federal agencies would be further 

clarified to insure applicants better 

understand the application process. The 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Coast Guard also proposed to revise the 

definitions used in parts 148, 149, and 

150 to reflect actual operations. 

The benefits for 33 CFR part 148 

would come from incorporating lessons 

learned from the history of deepwater 

port applications. The Coast Guard 

frequently finds that applications 

cannot be fully processed without timeconsuming delays to obtain additional 

data from applicants. The result may 

require the Coast Guard to ‘‘stop the 

clock’’ on the application review 

process. This proposed rule will likely 

reduce the periods when the ‘‘clock is 

stopped,’’ and expedite the application 

process. 

Part 149 

The proposed changes in 33 CFR part 

149 are mainly technical and 

administrative in nature to clarify the 

review and approval process. The 

proposed changes would allow for 

increased flexibility in the review and 

approval process and for certifying 

entities. 

Part 150 

The proposed changes to part 150 of 

Title 33 would consolidate operational 

requirements and codify current 

industry practice to improve 

understanding of, and compliance with, 

good operational practices. 

TABLE 4—ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Section Description of change Beneficial impact of change 

§ 148.3 What Federal 

agencies are responsible 

for implementing the 

Deepwater Port Act? 

Describes Coast Guard’s role as the lead agency responsible for NEPA compliance. Also describes the 

responsibilities of PHMSA and other federal agencies. Deletes reference to expired MOU.

Clarifies for applicant the roles and responsibilities of 

Coast Guard and other Federal agencies to enhance 

understanding of application process. 

§ 148.5 How are terms in 

this subchapter defined? 

Administrative definitions and reorganization ................. Clarification of various terms. 

§ 148.8 How are certifying 

entities designated and 

used for purposes of this 

subchapter. 

Allows the applicant to nominate a CE during the application processing phase in order to begin the technical review necessary for the approval of design, 

construction, installation, operation, maintenance and 

decommissioning plans for any proposed deepwater 

port.

Possible time and cost savings. The CE can be nominated and chosen during the MARAD evaluation period, rather than waiting until after the ROD, allowing 

earlier start to certification. The CE could begin technical review during MARAD evaluation period to identify potential problems and solutions before work has 

progressed on a application. 

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application? Various Administrative measures ................................... Clarifies roles of Coast Guard and MARAD, and who is 

a financially responsible party, and provides consistency with Coastal Zone Management Act procedures 

to enhance understanding of application process. 

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application? Provides flexibility in means of certifying accuracy of 

maps and diagrams.

Possible time and cost savings. As the Coast Guard 

processed applications, it became aware of the unavailability of registered professional surveyors authorized to certify Outer Continental Shelf leasing 

maps or protraction diagrams. This resulted in delays 

in application processing. By allowing for equivalent 

certifications, this proposed change would broaden 

the spectrum of persons who could certify the accuracy or correctness of the leasing maps or protraction 

diagrams, and minimize delays in application processing. 

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application? Allows use of data older than 5 years under certain circumstances.Potential time and cost savings. The proposed change 

would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard 

approval. Use of older information may result in costs 

avoided to develop new data. 

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application? Specifies various information to be included with application.Clarifies information to be included with the application 

to prevent ‘‘stopping the clock’’ if information is requested during application review. 

§ 148.107 What happens if 

I supplement my application? 

Various Administrative changes, including formalizing 

existing process for suspending timeline.

Clarifies existing process and enhances understanding 

by removing outdated discussion. 

§ 148.125 What are the application fees? Administrative change that adds environmental analysis 

as examples of costs for application and post-license 

review.

Clarifies the existing practice that environmental analysis costs are part of application and post-license review. 

§ 148.209 How is the application processed? Administrative change that removes reference to outdated MOU.Clarifies existing process by removing outdated references. 

§ 148.211 What must I do 

if I need to change my application? 

Formalizes existing process in the case of a significant 

change or required information.

Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 

§ 148.214 May I resubmit 

my application? 

Formalizes process to allow for re-submittal of application.Potential cost savings. The proposed change allows for 

the resubmission of an application after a modification with no filing fee. The existing process allows resubmission, but a filing fee for the re-submittal applies. 

§ 148.217 How can a State 

be designated as an Adjacent Coastal State? 

Clarifies respective duties of Coast Guard and MARAD Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 

§ 148.228 What if a formal 

evidentiary hearing is necessary? 

Provides procedures for existing hearings and removes 

superseded requirements.

Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19141 

TABLE 4—ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Section Description of change Beneficial impact of change 

§§ 148.230 through 148.256 Removes superseded requirements ............................... Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 

§ 148.276 What is the 

timeline for approving or 

denying an application? 

Describes timing for publication of notice of application 

and process for Adjacent Coastal State public hearings.

Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 

§ 148.283 When may the 

application process be 

stopped and an application be treated as withdrawn? 

Describes that MARAD and Commandant will provide 

joint written statement to the applicant of action taken 

under this section.

Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 

§ 148.405 What are the 

procedures for notifying 

the Commandant (CG–5P) 

of proposed site evaluation and pre-construction 

testing? 

Clarifies that BOEM guidelines for geological and geophysical surveys should be applied when the applicant plans to use bottom and sub-bottom acoustic 

profiling during deepwater port site evaluation and 

pre-construction activities.

Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 

§ 148.605 What are the 

procedures under OPA 90 

for adjusting a deepwater 

port’s limit of liability under 

33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)? 

Clarifies process for existing authority for Coast Guard 

to lower the OPA 90 limit of liability for deepwater 

ports; sets minimum level for OPA 90 limit of liability 

adjustments and describes process for increases as 

appropriate; lists information required to support an 

adjustment to liability.

Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of 

application process. 

§ 148.707 What type of criteria will be used in an environmental evaluation 

and how will they be applied? 

Clarifies existing requirements for NEPA submissions .. Clarifies information to be included with the Application 

to prevent ‘‘stopping the clock’’ if information is requested during application review. 

§ 148.707 What type of criteria will be used in an environmental evaluation 

and how will they be applied? 

Deletes requirement to consider future environmental 

regulations as unreasonable.

Possible time and cost savings. Consideration of future 

environmental regulations time consuming and requires speculation. Allows focus on complying with 

existing regulations. 

§ 148.715 How is an environmental review conducted? Adds the following to the existing list of factors: Geographic relevance, age of data, and methods of data 

analysis.

Clarifies information to be included with the application 

to prevent ‘‘stopping the clock’’ if information is requested during application review. 

§ 148.737 What environmental statutes must an 

applicant follow? 

Replaces list of statutes with reference to Web site so 

list can be kept current.

Allows for easier update of list of statutes that applicant 

must follow. 

§ 149.5 What definitions 

apply to this part? 

Moves to definition section 148.5 ................................... Administrative to enhance understanding of application 

process by consolidating definitions. 

§ 149.20 What must the 

District Commander be 

notified of and when? 

Adds that the District Commander must be notified of 

the construction of a submerged turret loading (STL) 

buoy.

Clarifies existing requirement by adding STL. 

§ 149.51 What construction 

drawings and specifications are required? 

Allows a foreign national engineer, possessing qualifications equivalent to those required in the United 

States for a professional engineer, to submit design 

and construction plans on behalf of the licensee.

Potential cost savings due to flexibility by allowing 

equivalent qualifications for foreign national engineer 

thereby avoiding potential delays. 

§ 149.52 What are the design standards? Clarifies what the appropriate classification society requirements are for deepwater ports. This proposed 

change would be added to explicitly allow for the 

adoption of classification society standards generally 

used within the offshore industry that are at least 

equivalent to rules established by any recognized 

classification society recognized by the Coast Guard.

Potential cost savings due to use of existing industry 

classification society standards. 

§ 149.54 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications 

affecting the design, construction, and operations 

of a deepwater port? 

Moves existing text from other section ........................... Reorganizes text to enhance understanding. 

§ 149.57 What is the review and approval process 

for the design, construction, and commissioning 

for Deepwater Ports for 

operation? 

Provides standardization of the deepwater port commissioning process, ensures all levels of the Coast 

Guard with deepwater port responsibilities are appraised of a deepwater port’s pending operational approval, and clarifies for the licensee the identity of the 

responsible Coast Guard official with daily operational oversight.

Describes the review and approval process and clarifies responsibilities to facilitate understanding of the 

process. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19142 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Section Description of change Beneficial impact of change 

§ 149.58 What is the role 

of the certifying entity in 

the review and approval 

process for the design, 

construction, and commissioning for Deepwater 

Ports for operation? 

Describes the scope and duration of a CE’s responsibility during each phase of design, construction, and 

operations, and would apply to all nominated CEs 

whether nominated under proposed § 148.8 or not. 

(discussed previously under ‘‘B. Part 148, 2. Application Information and Review’’).

Clarifies scope and duration of CE’s responsibility to 

enhance understanding of how the CE assists the 

application process. 

§ 149.115 What are the requirements for pipeline 

end manifold shutoff 

valves? 

Revises to indicate that the pipeline end manifold’s 

shutoff valve must be operable from a remote location because that capability must be available for operations on unmanned deepwater ports as well as 

during emergencies.

Clarifies existing requirements to improve ability to respond to emergencies and on unmanned facilities 

through the use of remote shutoff valves. 

§ 149.206 What are the requirements for survival 

craft and rescue boats? 

Aligns the requirements for survival craft and rescue 

boats for manned deepwater ports with Coast Guard 

regulations for the survival craft and rescue boat requirements for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU) 

in 46 CFR 108.520–108.575.

Enhances understanding by aligning requirements with 

MODU CFR. 

§ 150.10 What are the general requirements for operations manuals? To ensure operations manuals are subject to continuous review and reflect the deepwater port’s actual 

operational profile, the Coast Guard proposes in 

§ 150.10(e) to establish a five-year cycle for the operator to re-submit the operations manual to the Commandant (CG–5P) to be re-reviewed and re-approved. This 5-year review cycle would coincide with 

the existing five-year environmental baseline reassessment requirement found at § 150.15(bb).

Clarifies requirements for operations manual review to 

enhance understanding of process. 

§ 150.15 What must the 

operations manual include? 

Specifies details of operations manual including inclusion of existing COA and existing PMMP. Describes 

the annual audit of deepwater port security plan and 

clarifies scope of audits audit to modification.

Potential time and cost savings. Streamlines approval 

by ensuring that manual meets existing COA, MTSA, 

and PMMP/PHMSA requirements. 

Requires development of a procedures manual for 

pipelines incorporating existing PHMSA requirements.

Establishes requirement for Sector Commander or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority to 

perform annual security inspection and 5-year security plan review.

§ 150.25 When will the 

Coast Guard require 

amendments to the operations manual? 

Clarifies responsibility of Sector Commander or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI authority with respect to operations manual amendments and enables other Federal agencies to propose amendments to operations manual.

Enhances understanding of process by clarifying responsibilities of Coast Guard and other Federal 

agencies with regards to amendments to operations 

manual. 

§ 150.30 How may the licensee propose an 

amendment to the operations manual? 

Adds new paragraph (a) to state that the applicant 

must provide Commandant with a copy of the proposed amendment. Commandant would then notify 

MARAD prior to approval of significant changes to 

the deepwater port’s operations.

Enhances understanding of process by clarifying process for amending operations manual and notifying 

MARAD. 

§ 150.100 What are the requirements for inspecting 

deepwater ports? 

Adds language that representatives from other Federal 

agencies can accompany Coast Guard personnel 

during an inspection.

Enhances understanding of process by clarifying that 

representatives from other Federal agencies can accompany Coast Guard personnel during an inspection. 

§ 150.105 What are the requirements for annual selfinspection? Clarifies the existing procedures for development and 

approval of a deepwater port self-inspection program 

by which deepwater ports may, prior to commencement of operations, submit a self-inspection program 

to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority for consideration and approval.

Enhances understanding of process by clarifying the 

existing procedures for developing and approving a 

self-inspection program. 

§ 150.107 What notice 

must be given in the event 

of inspections? 

Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of Federal or 

State inspection and retain records of inspections.

Formalizes current industry practice relating to notice of 

inspections. 

§ 150.110 What are the notification requirements 

upon receipt of classification society certifications? 

Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of changes 

to classification status.

Formalizes current industry practice relating to changes 

to classification. 

§ 150.225 What training 

and instruction are required? 

Describes basic safety training requirements for all employees.Clarifies existing regulatory requirements for basic safety training for all employees. 

§ 150.435 When are cargo 

transfers not allowed? 

Allows continuation of cargo transfers during electrical 

storms if certain procedures are used.

Potential cost savings due to flexibility in continuing operations. Also, LNG ports must maintain operations 

to avoid possible hazardous situations. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19143 

19Public Law 104–121. 

20 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

TABLE 4—ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Section Description of change Beneficial impact of change 

§ 150.830 Reporting a pollution incident. Describes process for reporting oil pollution incidents ... Enhances understanding of process by clarifying existing regulatory requirements for reporting oil pollution 

incidents. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this final rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

government jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

There are three entities that operate 

existing deepwater ports. LOOP is 

owned by a consortium of three 

multinational energy corporations. The 

owners/operators of LOOP are not 

small; therefore, LOOP exceeds the 

threshold for a small entity. Gulf 

Gateway and Northeast Gateway are 

wholly owned by the second entity, 

which exceeds the threshold for a small 

entity. The deepwater port Neptune 

LNG is wholly owned by the third 

entity, which exceeds the threshold for 

a small entity. The applicants of the five 

applications that were withdrawn also 

exceed the threshold for a small entity. 

We assume that any new deepwater port 

will not be a small entity given the 

history and requirements for a new 

deepwater port. The North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes and size standards for these 

entities are found in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—NAICS CODES AND SIZE

STANDARD FOR DEEPWATER PORT

OPERATORS

Count of 

companies NAICS Code 

Size 

standard 

(employees) 

1 ............ 486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil.1,500 

1 ............ 424710 Petroleum Bulk 

Stations and Terminals.

100 

1 ............ 211111 Oil and Gas Extraction.500 

2 ............ 221210 Natural Gas Distribution.500 

No not-for-profit organizations are 

involved with deepwater ports. 

Deepwater ports are beyond the 

boundary line and therefore beyond 

small government jurisdiction. This 

proposed rule will not have an adverse 

impact on small government entities. 

Therefore the Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 

not, if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment to the Docket 

Management Facility at the address 

under ADDRESSES. In your comment, 

explain why you think it qualifies and 

how and to what degree this rule would 

economically affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996,19 we want to assist 

small entities in understanding this 

proposed rule so that they could better 

evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If the 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult Mr. Kevin 

Tone, Deepwater Ports Standards 

Division (CG–OES–4), email 

Kevin.P.Tone@uscg.mil, phone (202) 

372–1441. The Coast Guard will not 

retaliate against the small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

D. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 20

(PRA). Under OMB regulations 

implementing the PRA, ‘‘Controlling 

Paperwork Burdens on the Public’’ (5 

CFR part 1320), ‘‘collection of 

information’’ means the obtaining, 

soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to 

an agency of information by or for an 

agency by means of identical questions 

posed to, or identical reporting, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements imposed on, ten or more 

persons. ‘‘Ten or more persons’’ refers to 

the number of respondents to whom a 

collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period and does not include employees 

of the respondent acting within the 

scope of their employment, contractors 

engaged by a respondent for the purpose 

of complying with the collection of 

information, or current employees of the 

Federal government. Collections of 

information affecting ten or more 

respondents within any 12-month 

period require OMB review and 

approval. 

This proposed rule comprises 

deepwater port application, operation, 

and oversight procedures. The Coast 

Guard expects fewer than ten entities in 

the natural gas industry would be 

affected by this rule within any 12- 

month period because there are only 

four deepwater ports currently in 

operation, and the Coast Guard does not 

expect to receive ten or more 

applications in any future year because 

it has received only eight applications 

in the last five years combined. Thus, 

we expect to receive less than 10 

applications per year; less than 10 

submissions of design, construction, 

and equipment modification per year; 

and less than 10 proposals to amend 

approved Operation Manuals per year. 

Consequently, the number of 

respondents is less than the threshold of 

ten respondents per 12-month period for 

collection of information requirements 

under the PRA. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19144 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

21 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. 

22Codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272. 

23 42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f. 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Our analysis is explained below. 

Congress conferred rulemaking 

authority on the Secretary of 

Transportation to promulgate 

regulations to carry out the provisions of 

the DWPA. Relating to deepwater port 

licenses, 33 U.S.C. 1504(a) states that 

the Secretary ‘‘shall . . . issue 

regulations to carry out the purposes 

and provisions of [the DWPA] . . . Such 

regulations shall pertain to, but need not 

be limited to, application, issuance, 

transfer, renewal, suspension, and 

termination of licenses.’’ As noted 

above, when the Coast Guard was 

transferred to DHS, certain authorities 

and functions that were delegated to the 

Coast Guard while operating as a part of 

the Department of Transportation 

remained with the Coast Guard after its 

transfer to DHS. As such, the Coast 

Guard retained its delegated authority to 

establish the regulatory framework 

governing the application and licensing 

process of deepwater ports. Although 

Congress specifically provided for 

affected States to play a role in the 

licensing process of deepwater ports, 

the authorities exercised by the Coast 

Guard in this rulemaking do not involve 

those delineated State roles or 

responsibilities as they establish the 

licensing procedures themselves. 

Congress made clear in the language of 

the DWPA that the authority to establish 

licensing procedures was reserved to the 

Coast Guard and States may not regulate 

within this category. Therefore, the 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

principles of federalism and preemption 

requirements in Executive Order 13132. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard was 

granted the authority by Congress, 

through delegation, to issue regulations 

to improve safety in deepwater ports. 33 

U.S.C. 1509(b) states that the Secretary 

‘‘shall issue and enforce regulations 

with respect to lights and other warning 

devices, safety equipment, and other 

matters relating to the promotion of 

safety of life and property in any 

deepwater port and the waters adjacent 

thereto.’’ As this proposed rule revises 

provisions regarding the construction, 

design, equipment, and operation of 

deepwater ports, it falls within the 

scope of authority Congress granted 

exclusively to the Secretary. This 

authority has been delegated to the 

Coast Guard and is exercised in this 

rulemaking, and the States may not 

regulate within these categories of 

construction, design, equipment and 

operation for deepwater ports. 

Therefore, the proposed rule is 

consistent with the principles of 

federalism and preemption 

requirements in Executive Order 13132. 

While it is well settled that States may 

not regulate in categories in which 

Congress intended the Coast Guard to be 

the sole source of authority to issue 

regulations, the Coast Guard recognizes 

the key role that State and local 

governments may have in making 

regulatory determinations. Additionally, 

for rules with federalism implications 

and preemptive effect, Executive Order 

13132 specifically directs agencies to 

consult with State and local 

governments during the rulemaking 

process. If you believe this proposed 

rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION section of this 

preamble. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 21 requires Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their discretionary 

regulatory actions. In particular, the Act 

addresses actions that may result in the 

expenditure by a State, local, or tribal 

government, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted 

for inflation) or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under E.O. 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed 

rule is not an economically significant 

rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, because it 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under that 

Order. Though it is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under E.O. 12866, it 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

not designated it as a significant energy 

action. Therefore, it does not require a 

Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 

13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act 22 directs 

agencies to use voluntary consensus 

standards in their regulatory activities 

unless the agency provides Congress, 

through OMB, with an explanation of 

why using these standards would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., specifications of 

materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under DHS Management Directive 023– 

01 and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969,23

and have made a preliminary 

determination that this action is one of 

a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19145 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

preamble. This action falls under 

section 2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(a) and involves regulations that are 

editorial or procedural, such as those 

updating or establishing application 

procedures. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 148 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental protection, 

Harbors, Petroleum. 

33 CFR Part 149 

Fire prevention, Harbors, Marine 

Safety, Navigation (water), Occupational 

safety and health, Oil pollution. 

33 CFR Part 150 

Harbors, Incorporation by reference, 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Occupational safety and health, Oil 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR parts 148, 149, and 150 

as follows: 

PART 148—DEEPWATER PORTS: 

GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 148 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1504; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 

(75). 

■ 2. Revise § 148.3 to read as follows: 

§ 148.3 What Federal agencies are 

responsible for implementing the 

Deepwater Port Act? 

(a) Under delegations from the 

Secretary of Homeland Security and the 

Secretary of Transportation, the Coast 

Guard and MARAD coordinate with 

each other in processing applications for 

the issuance, transfer, or amendment of 

a license for the construction and 

operation of a deepwater port. 

(b) The Coast Guard is responsible for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

including, but not limited to, 

preparation of the appropriate 

environmental documents 

(Environmental Impact Statement, 

Environmental Assessment, and/or a 

State-required Environmental Impact 

Report) for each deepwater port license 

application. The Coast Guard also has 

authority over certain matters relating to 

navigation safety and security, 

engineering and safety standards and 

deepwater port inspections. 

(c) MARAD is responsible for issuing 

the Record of Decision to announce 

whether a license application is 

approved, approved with conditions, or 

denied, and for issuing, revoking, and 

reinstating deepwater port licenses. 

MARAD also has authority over the 

approval of fees charged by Adjacent 

Coastal States, and certain matters 

relating to international policy, civil 

actions, and suspension or termination 

of licenses. 

(d) The Secretary of Transportation 

has delegated to the Administrator of 

the Pipeline Hazardous Materials and 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) the 

authority to carry out the functions 

vested in the Secretary under section 21 

of the Deepwater Port Act relating to the 

safe construction, operation, and 

maintenance of pipelines associated 

with deepwater ports. 

(e) The Secretary of the Interior is 

responsible for determining the fair 

market rental value of the subsoil and 

seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf of 

the United States to be used by the 

deepwater port, including, but not 

limited to, the fair market rental value 

of the right-of-way necessary for the 

pipeline segment of the port located on 

such subsoil and seabed. Any proposed 

subsuface storage of oil and gas in the 

submerged lands of the Outer 

Continental Shelf is also subject to the 

review and approval of the Secretary of 

the Interior. In order to minimize 

potential impacts to existing facilities 

and protect the development potential 

of nearby oil, gas, and mineral 

resources, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) should also be 

involved in the site selection process. 

(f) The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and other Federal agencies 

are designated as cooperating agencies 

and support the Coast Guard and 

MARAD in the review and evaluation of 

deepwater port license applications. 

■ 3. Amend § 148.5 as follows: 

■ a. Add a definition in alphabetical 

order for ‘‘Accommodation module’’; 

■ b. Revise the definition for 

‘‘Construction’’; 

■ c. Add definitions in alphabetical 

order for ‘‘Deepwater port’’, ‘‘Deepwater 

port security plan’’, ‘‘Engineering 

geological survey’’, 

■ d. Remove the definition for 

‘‘Engineering hydrographic survey’’; 

■ e. Add in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Flexible riser and 

umbilical’’; 

■ f. Revise the definition for ‘‘Lease 

block’’; 

■ g. Add in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Major conversion’’ and 

‘‘Marine Safety Unit (MSU) 

Commander’’; 

■ h. Revise the definitions for ‘‘Marine 

site’’ and ‘‘Maritime Administration’’; 

■ i. Add in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Mile’’; 

■ j. Revise the definitions for 

‘‘Operator’’ and ‘‘Person in Charge’’; 

■ k. Add in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘PIC’’ and ‘‘Pipeline’’; 

■ l. Revise the definition for ‘‘Pipeline 

end manifold’’; 

■ m. Add in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Prevention, monitoring 

and mitigation program’’; 

■ n. Revise the definition for ‘‘Safety 

zone’’; 

■ o. Add in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Service space’’; 

■ p. Revise the definitions for ‘‘Single 

point mooring oil transfer system’’; 

‘‘Single point mooring natural gas 

transfer system’’; 

■ q. Add in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Service space’’, 

‘‘Sleeping space’’, and ‘‘Submerged 

turret loading buoy’’; and 

■ r. Revise the definition for ‘‘Vessel’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows; 

§ 148.5 How are terms used in this 

subchapter defined? 

As used in this subchapter: 

Accommodation module means a 

module with one or more 

accommodation spaces that is 

individually contracted and may be 

used for one or more facilities. 

* * * * * 

Construction means any activity 

incidental to building, repairing, or 

expanding a deepwater port or any of its 

components, and includes but is not 

limited to supervision, inspection, 

actual building, fabrication, laying of 

pipe, pile driving, bulk heading, 

alteration, modification, commissioning, 

and additions to the deepwater port. 

* * * * * 

Deepwater port. (1) Means any fixed 

or floating manmade structure other 

than a vessel, or any group of structures, 

located beyond State seaward 

boundaries that are used or are intended 

for use as a port or terminal for the 

transportation, storage, or further 

handling of oil or natural gas for 

transportation to or from any State, 

except as otherwise provided in the 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as 

amended, and for other uses not 

inconsistent with the purposes of the 

Deepwater Ports Act, including 

transportation of oil or natural gas from 

the United States’ OCS; 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19146 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Includes all components and 

equipment, including pipelines, 

pumping stations, service platforms, 

buoys, mooring lines, and similar 

facilities, to the extent that they are 

located seaward of the high water mark; 

(3) Includes, in the case of natural gas, 

all components and equipment, 

including pipelines, pumping or 

compressor stations, service platforms, 

buoys, mooring lines, and similar 

facilities which are proposed and/or 

approved for construction and operation 

as part of the deepwater port, to the 

extent that they are located seaward of 

the high water mark and do not include 

interconnecting facilities; and 

(4) Must be considered a ‘‘new 

source’’ for purposes of the Clean Air 

Act, as amended (codified at 42 U.S.C. 

7401 et seq.), and the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended 

(codified at 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

Deepwater port security plan or DPSP 

means the plan developed to ensure the 

implementation of security measures, at 

each Maritime Security Level defined in 

33 CFR 101.105, to protect the 

deepwater port and its servicing vessels 

or those vessels interfacing with the 

deepwater port, and any cargoes and 

persons on board the port or vessels. 

* * * * * 

Engineering geological survey means a 

detailed geological analysis of seabed 

soil samples performed to determine the 

physical composition—for example the 

mineral content—and structural 

integrity for the installation of offshore 

components and structures. 

Flexible riser and umbilical refer to 

the parts of a single point mooring 

system and include the flexible product 

transfer and control system from the 

submerged turret loading (STL) buoy to 

a pipeline end manifold (PLEM). 

* * * * * 

Lease block means an area established 

either by the Secretary of the Interior 

under 43 U.S.C. 1334, or by a State 

under 43 U.S.C. 1311. 

* * * * * 

Major conversion means a conversion 

that the Commandant (CG–5P) 

determines will result in a substantial 

change to the deepwater port’s type or 

essence, dimensions, carrying capacity 

(if a floating deepwater port), processing 

equipment, or expected useful lifespan. 

* * * * * 

Marine Safety Unit (MSU) 

Commander means the same as the 

definition in 33 CFR 3.01–1(d)(2). 

Marine site means the area in which 

the deepwater port is located, including, 

but not limited to, the safety zone and 

all areas seaward of the high water mark 

in which associated components and 

equipment of the deepwater port are 

located. 

Maritime Administration or MARAD 

means the Administrator of the 

Maritime Administration or that 

person’s designees, and includes the 

Associate Administrator for Intermodal 

System Development, Maritime 

Administration, or that individual’s 

authorized representative, at 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590, telephone (202) 366–0926. 

* * * * * 

Mile means nautical mile. 

* * * * * 

Operator means the licensee or the 

licensee’s designee. 

* * * * * 

Person in charge, when used without 

the abbreviation ‘‘PIC,’’ means a person 

in charge of an operation other than 

transfer operations. 

PIC means an individual designated 

as a person in charge of transfer 

operations under 33 CFR 154.710 for oil 

facilities or 33 CFR 127.301 for liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) facilities. 

* * * * * 

Pipeline means the pipeline portion of 

a deepwater port downstream of the last 

valve, and associated safety equipment, 

on the pipeline end manifold (PLEM). 

On deepwater ports with multiple 

mooring stations, the term includes the 

flow line or gathering line between each 

PLEM. 

Pipeline end manifold or PLEM means 

the deepwater port process skids 

containing the valves, controls, and 

instrumentation downstream of the 

mooring equipment. The PLEM is 

normally subsea and will normally 

include the last downstream valve prior 

to the deepwater port pipeline. 

* * * * * 

Prevention, monitoring, and 

mitigation program or PMMP means a 

post-licensing, performance-based 

process to evaluate the effectiveness of 

preventing or mitigating environmental 

impacts from deepwater port 

construction and operations, and 

including the development of a preconstruction monitoring baseline with 

subsequent periodic evaluations to 

determine if and when improvements to 

the program must be incorporated. 

* * * * * 

Safety zone means a safety zone 

established around a deepwater port 

under part 150, subpart J, of this chapter 

and extending up to 500 meters 

(approximately 1,640 feet) around the 

deepwater port, measured from each 

point on its outer edge or from its 

construction site, except as authorized 

by generally accepted international 

standards or as recommended by the 

International Maritime Organization but 

not interfering with the use of 

recognized sea lanes. 

Service space means a space used for 

a galley, a pantry containing cooking 

appliances, a storeroom, or a workshop 

other than those in industrial areas, and 

trunks to those spaces. 

* * * * * 

Single point mooring oil transfer 

system or SPM–OTS means the part of 

the oil transfer system from the pipeline 

end manifold to the end of the hose 

string that connects to the tanker’s 

manifold. This is not part of a 

submerged turret loading-single point 

mooring (STL–SPM) system. 

Single point mooring natural gas 

transfer system or SPM–NGTS means 

the part of the natural gas transfer 

system from the pipeline end manifold 

to the end of the hose string that 

connects to the tanker’s manifold. This 

is not part of a submerged turret 

loading-single point mooring (STL– 

SPM) system. 

Sleeping space means a space 

provided with bunks for sleeping. 

* * * * * 

Submerged turret loading buoy or STL 

buoy means a loading buoy connected to 

the riser and umbilical that is pulled 

into a tanker’s receiving cone for the 

transfer of oil or natural gas. 

* * * * * 

Vessel means every description of 

watercraft or artificial contrivance used 

or capable of being used as a means of 

transportation on or through the water. 

■ 4. Amend § 148.8 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), add a sentence at 

the end of the paragraph; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

remove the words ‘‘may be made at any 

time after the Maritime Administration 

issues a record of decision approving 

the application, and’’. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 148.8 How are certifying entities 

designated and used for purposes of this 

subchapter? 

(a) * * * Applicants may, with 

Commandant (CG–5P) approval, 

nominate a CE before the Maritime 

Administration issues a Record of 

Decision. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 148.105 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(i), 

(g)(2)(iii), (i)(1), and (j) introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(1)(i), 

(j)(1)(ii), and (j)(2); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (k)(1) 

introductory text, (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(iii), 

and (m)(2); 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (m)(3) and (4); 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19147 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (n) 

introductory text, (s)(6)(iv), (t) 

introductory text, (y), and (z); and 

■ f. Adding paragraph (ff). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 148.105 What must I include in my 

application? 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Annual financial statements, 

audited by an independent certified 

public accountant, for the previous 3 

years, including, but not limited to, an 

income statement, balance sheet, and 

cash flow statement with footnote 

disclosures prepared according to U.S. 

Generally Accepted Accounting 

Principles; provided, however, that 

MARAD, in consultation with the 

Commandant (CG–5P), may waive this 

requirement upon finding: 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) A preliminary estimate of the cost 

of removing all of the deepwater port 

marine components, including pipelines 

that lie beneath the seabed. The licensee 

of a deepwater port is responsible for 

the costs associated with removal of all 

deepwater port components. Should a 

license be granted, MARAD will require 

a bond, guarantee, or other financial 

instrument to cover the complete cost of 

decommissioning as a condition of the 

license. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) Evidence, to the extent available, 

that the requirements of 33 U.S.C. 

1341(a)(1) will be satisfied. If complete 

information is not available by the time 

MARAD must either approve or deny 

the application under 33 U.S.C. 

1504(i)(1), the license for the deepwater 

port will be conditioned upon the 

applicant demonstrating that the 

requirements of 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1) 

will be satisfied. 

* * * * * 

(j) Coastal zone management. (1) The 

application must be accompanied by a 

completed consistency certification that 

the proposed activity complies with, 

and will be conducted in a manner 

consistent with, each affected state’s 

Coastal Management Program. This 

certification must include— 

(i) The statement: ‘‘The proposed 

activity complies with the enforceable 

policies of [NAME OF AFFECTED 

STATE]’s approved management 

program and will be conducted in a 

manner consistent with such program.’’; 

and 

(ii) A copy of the environmental 

evaluation required by § 148.105(z) of 

this part; and 

(2) At the time of submitting the 

application, the applicant must also 

furnish to the appropriate agency of 

each State where the proposal may 

affect a coastal use or resource, a copy 

of the certification requesting 

concurrence with the consistency 

certification. Complete procedures for 

providing data for the consistency 

certification are specified at 15 CFR part 

930, subpart D. 

(k) Identification of lease block. (1) 

Identification of each lease block where 

any part of the proposed deepwater port 

or its approaches is located. This 

identification must be made on official 

Outer Continental Shelf leasing maps or 

protraction diagrams, where available. 

Each map and diagram must be certified 

by a professional surveyor, or, in the 

alternative, the applicant must provide 

an equivalent means of certifying 

accuracy. For each lease block, provide 

the following: 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Fixed and floating structures and 

associated components seaward of the 

high water mark; 

* * * * * 

(iii) Proposed anchorage and mooring 

areas, including areas associated with 

construction and pipelaying operations; 

(2) A reconnaissance hydrographic 

survey of the proposed marine site. This 

survey should provide data on the water 

depth, cultural resources, and a general 

characterization of the sea bottom. A 

requirement to submit a reconnaissance 

hydrographic survey of the final marine 

site will be imposed as a condition in 

the license. The applicant may submit 

existing data, gathered within the 

previous 5 years (or within a longer 

timeframe if approved by the 

Commandant (CG–5P)), but it must be 

supplemented by field data for the 

specific locations in which a high 

degree of variability exists; 

(3) Meteorological/oceanographic 

(‘‘MetOcean’’) data. This should include 

prevailing winds, currents, waves and 

storms in the vicinity of the proposed 

marine site; and 

(4) Vessel traffic data. At least one 

year of vessel traffic data from the most 

recent year’s data, if available, in the 

vicinity of the proposed marine site. 

(n) Engineering geological survey 

data. An initial preliminary analysis of 

the general character and condition of 

the ocean bottom and sub-bottom, soils 

and sediments throughout the marine 

site, and, if applicable, soils and 

topography throughout the terrestrial 

site. If the applicant proposes to use 

horizontal directional drilling (HDD), 

the initial preliminary analysis must 

include a study addressing the 

feasibility of HDD in the proposed HDD 

location. The applicant may use existing 

data, so long as it was collected within 

the last 5 years (or within a longer 

timeframe if approved by the 

Commandant (CG–5P)) and continues to 

provide accurate information about 

conditions throughout the site. If not, a 

new survey must be completed to 

provide supplemental data. The analysis 

must include an opinion by a registered 

professional specializing in soil 

mechanics, such as a registered 

professional engineer or an equivalent 

means of certifying accuracy, 

concerning: 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iv) Any associated equipment, 

including equipment for oil or natural 

gas regasification, throughput 

measuring, leak detection, emergency 

shutdown, and the alarm system. 

* * * * * 

(t) Information on offshore pipelines. 

To facilitate timely processing of an 

application, applicants are encouraged 

to consult with PHMSA to verify the 

requirements for the design, 

construction, operation and 

maintenance of pipelines prior to 

submitting an application, which must 

include the following: 

* * * * * 

(y) Risk and consequence assessment. 

The applicant must submit a sitespecific risk and consequence 

assessment to assess the risks and 

consequences of accidental and 

intentional events that compromise 

cargo containment. The applicant may 

consult with the Commandant (CG–5P) 

to ensure that appropriate assessment 

procedures are used. If the Coast Guard 

determines that an independent risk and 

consequence assessment is necessary, 

the Coast Guard may require the 

applicant to provide additional data in 

order to support an independent, sitespecific analysis. The Coast Guard may 

use an approved third party to analyze 

the applicant provided data for impact 

on the public, property, and the 

environment including, but not limited 

to, potential events that result in a 

liquefied natural gas or oil spill, vapor 

dispersion and/or fire. The Coast Guardapproved third party will use validated 

models, for example, computational 

fluid dynamics, or an equivalent model. 

(z) Environmental evaluation. An 

analysis, sufficient to meet the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and as 

outlined in subpart H of this part, of the 

potential impacts on the natural and 

human environments, including 

sufficient information that complies 

with all applicable Federal, tribal, and 

State requirements for the protection of 

the environment. The analysis must 

identify a reasonable range of 

alternatives to the proposed action 

including, but not limited to, deepwater 

port location, pipeline route and 

landfall, construction methods, 

deepwater port design, and technologies 

used during operation. 

* * * * * 

(ff) MARPOL 73/78 requirements for 

certification as Reception Facility for 

Oil, Noxious Liquid Substances, and 

Garbage. The deepwater port license 

applicant must include an application 

for a Certificate of Adequacy (COA) as 

defined in 33 CFR 158.120 or a written 

waiver justifying why compliance with 

the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 

1978 relating to that Convention, or 

MARPOL 73/78, is unreasonable or 

impracticable. 

■ 6. Revise § 148.107 to read as follows: 

§ 148.107 What happens if I supplement 

my application? 

(a) The Commandant (CG–5P), in 

coordination with MARAD, may require 

the applicant, or the applicant’s 

affiliates, to file as a supplement to the 

application any analysis, explanation, or 

other information the Commandant 

(CG–5P) deems necessary to process the 

application. 

(b) The Commandant (CG–5P), in 

coordination with MARAD, may require 

the applicant, or the applicant’s 

affiliates, to make available for Coast 

Guard or MARAD examination, under 

oath or for interview, persons having, or 

believed to have, necessary information. 

(c) If information under paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section is required, the 

Commandant (CG–5P), with input from 

the applicant, will determine if that 

required supplemental information can 

be provided in a timeframe necessary to 

meet the Act’s timeline for processing 

the application. If the information under 

paragraph (a) or (b) cannot be provided 

in that timeframe, the Commandant 

(CG–5P), in consultation with MARAD, 

may suspend the timeline for processing 

the application until the Commandant 

(CG–5P) receives that information and 

deems it to be adequate. 

(d) The deadline for the 

Administrator’s review of an application 

under the Act is extended for a period 

of time equal to the total number of days 

of all suspensions made under 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(e) If information under paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section is required, and the 

Commandant (CG–5P) determines that 

reasonable progress is not being made to 

supply that information, the 

Commandant (CG–5P) may recommend 

to MARAD to either suspend processing 

of the application indefinitely or to treat 

the application as withdrawn in 

accordance with § 148.283 of this part. 

§ 148.125 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 148.125(c) by adding the 

words ‘‘and additional environmental 

analysis’’ after the words ‘‘operations 

manual’’. 

§ 148.207 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 148.209 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 148.209 How is the application 

processed? 

* * * * * 

(a) Each Federal agency with 

jurisdiction over any aspect of 

ownership, construction, or operation of 

deepwater ports; and 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Revise § 148.211 to read as follows: 

§ 148.211 What must I do if I need to 

change my application? 

(a) If at any time before MARAD 

approves or denies an application, the 

information in it changes, becomes 

incomplete, or becomes inaccurate, the 

applicant must promptly submit the 

changes, additional information, or 

necessary corrections in the manner set 

forth in § 148.115 of this part. 

(b) The Coast Guard may determine 

that the change or required information 

is of such magnitude that it warrants 

submission of an amended or, in some 

cases, a completely revised application. 

The Commandant (CG–5P), in 

consultation with MARAD, will 

determine if the change is of such a 

magnitude as to require reopening of the 

scoping process or otherwise warrant 

the opportunity for additional public 

comment on the proposed action. 

■ 10. Add § 148.214 to read as follows: 

§ 148.214 May I resubmit my application? 

With the approval of MARAD, in 

consultation with the Commandant 

(CG–5P), an applicant may resubmit a 

previously withdrawn application in 

accordance with subpart B of this part. 

The Commandant (CG–5P) may waive 

such subpart B requirements as the 

Commandant (CG–5P) deems 

appropriate. Where the application was 

previously denied, or withdrawn due to 

concerns raised by either MARAD or the 

governor of an Adjacent Coastal State, 

the resubmission must be accompanied 

by a memorandum in which the 

applicant shows clearly how the 

application has been revised to address 

those reasons for denial or concerns. 

§ 148.215 [Amended] 

■ 11. Amend § 148.215 as follows: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (c)(5); and 

■ b. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(5), after the words ‘‘determination 

that the’’, add the words ‘‘proposed 

deepwater’’. 

■ 12. Amend § 148.217 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 148.217 How can a State be designated 

as an Adjacent Coastal State? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Be submitted in writing to 

MARAD within 14 days after the date of 

publication of the notice of application 

in the Federal Register; 

* * * * * 

(c) Upon receipt of a request, MARAD 

will send a copy of the State’s request 

to the Administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and ask for the 

Administrator’s recommendations 

within an amount of time that will 

allow MARAD, in consultation with the 

Commandant (CG–5P), 45 days from 

receipt of the request to determine the 

matter. 

(d) If after receiving NOAA’s 

recommendations, MARAD determines 

that the State should be considered an 

Adjacent Coastal State, MARAD, in 

consultation with the Commandant 

(CG–5P), will so designate it. If MARAD, 

in consultation with the Commandant 

(CG–5P), denies the request, he or she 

will notify the requesting State’s 

Governor of the denial. 

§ 148.222 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 148.222(b) by removing 

the words ‘‘The Commandant (CG–5) or 

the MARAD Administrator’’ and adding, 

in their place, the words ‘‘MARAD, in 

coordination with the Commandant 

(CG–5P),’’. 

■ 14. Revise § 148.228 to read as 

follows: 

§ 148.228 What if a formal evidentiary 

hearing is necessary? 

After all public meetings under 

§ 148.222 of this part are concluded, 

MARAD, in consultation with the 

Commandant (CG–5P), will consider 

whether there are one or more specific 

and material factual issues that may be 

resolved by a formal evidentiary 

hearing. If it is determined that a formal 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19149 

evidentiary hearing is necessary, the 

hearing will be conducted in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 554, in accordance with 

procedures prescribed by MARAD. 

§§ 148.230, 148.232, 148.234, 148.236, 

148.238, 148.240, 148.242, 148.244, 148.246, 

148.248, 148.250, 148.252, 148.254, and 

148.256 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 15. Remove and reserve §§ 148.230 

148.232, 148.234, 148.236, 148.238, 

148.240, 148.242, 148.244, 148.246, 

148.248, 148.250, 148.252, 148.254, and 

148.256. 

■ 16. Revise § 148.276 to read as 

follows: 

§ 148.276 What is the timeline for 

approving or denying an application? 

(a) In 33 U.S.C. 1504, the Act provides 

strict timelines for action on a license 

application, which, if closely observed, 

can lead to action in just under 1 year. 

The Coast Guard, with the concurrence 

of MARAD, may suspend the timeline if 

an applicant fails to provide timely 

information or requests additional time 

to comply with a request, as described 

in § 148.107 of this part. 

(b) The timeline for action on a 

license application includes publishing 

a notice of application. A notice of 

application is published after it has 

been determined that the application 

contains sufficient material for 

processing the application. The Coast 

Guard and MARAD must conduct a 

public hearing in each Adjacent Coastal 

State within 240 days of publishing the 

notice. 

(c) After the final environmental 

impact statement is published, MARAD 

will hold a final public hearing in each 

Adjacent Coastal State. MARAD issues a 

Record of Decision (ROD) approving or 

denying a license application within 90 

days after the final public hearing. 

Actual issuance of a license may not 

take place until certain conditions 

imposed by the ROD have been met. 

Those conditions may include how the 

applicant must address design, 

construction, installation, testing, 

operations, and decommissioning of the 

deepwater port, or meet the 

requirements of other agencies. 

■ 17. Amend § 148.277 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 148.277 How may Federal agencies and 

States participate in the application 

process? 

* * * * * 

(d) Approvals or disapprovals of the 

application from the governors of 

Adjacent Coastal States will be accepted 

by MARAD only within the 45-day 

period after the close of the final public 

hearing on the application, and not 

before the final public hearing. If the 

governor fails to transmit his or her 

approval or disapproval to MARAD not 

later than 45 days after the last public 

hearing, such approval will be 

conclusively presumed. 

§ 148.281 [Amended] 

■ 18. Amend § 148.281(b)(1) by 

removing the letter ‘‘G’’ after the word 

‘‘subpart’’ and adding, in its place, the 

letter ‘‘H’’. 

■ 19. Revise § 148.283 to read as 

follows: 

§ 148.283 When may the application 

process be stopped and an application be 

treated as withdrawn? 

(a) The Commandant (CG–5P) may 

recommend to MARAD that an 

application be treated as withdrawn 

before the application is approved or 

denied if— 

(1) The application is withdrawn 

before MARAD approves it; or 

(2) The application is incomplete, and 

the applicant does not respond to a 

request by the Commandant (CG–5P) for 

further information, as per § 148.107 of 

this part. 

(b) The Commandant (CG–5P) and 

MARAD will provide joint written 

notice to the applicant of an action 

taken under this section. 

§ 148.405 [Amended] 

■ 20. Amend § 148.405(c)(2) as follows: 

■ a. After the word ‘‘limits’’, remove the 

symbol ‘‘,’’; and 

■ b. After the word ‘‘explosives’’, add 

the words ‘‘, per the applicable guidance 

for geological and geophysical surveys 

prescribed by the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM)’’. 

Subpart G—[Redesignated as Subpart 

H] 

■ 21. Redesignate subpart G, consisting 

of §§ 148.700 through 148.737, as 

subpart H. 

■ 22. Add new subpart G entitled 

‘‘Subpart G—Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

Limits of Liability for Deepwater Ports’’ 

and move §§ 148.600 and 148.605 from 

subpart F to new subpart G and revise 

them to read as follows: 

Subpart G—Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

Limits of Liability for Deepwater Ports 

§ 148.600 Where can I find the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990 (OPA 90) limits of financial 

liability for deepwater ports? 

The OPA 90 limits of liability for 

deepwater ports are set forth in 33 CFR 

138.230(b). The limits of liability in that 

section are adjusted periodically for 

significant increases in the Consumer 

Price Index, in accordance with 33 

U.S.C. 2704(d)(4) and the procedures in 

33 CFR 138.240. The limits of liability 

may also be adjusted under 33 U.S.C. 

2704(d)(2) and the procedures in 

§ 148.605 of this subpart. 

§ 148.605 What are the procedures under 

OPA 90 for adjusting a deepwater port’s 

limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)? 

(a) Upon an applicant’s or licensee’s 

request, the Coast Guard may lower the 

generally applicable OPA 90 limit of 

liability for deepwater ports in 33 CFR 

138.230(b)(1). The Coast Guard may do 

so under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2) on a port 

by-port-basis, after evaluating a spill 

risk analysis and an economic analysis. 

Adjustments to a deepwater port’s limit 

of liability are established by a 

rulemaking that allows for public notice 

and comment, and if approved, will be 

codified at 33 CFR 138.230(b)(2). 

(b) The limit of liability of a 

deepwater port will not be reduced to 

less than $50 million, and may be 

increased following a reduction, as the 

Coast Guard deems appropriate, if the 

design, construction, or operation of the 

deepwater port changes, or if oil spill 

incidents related to the deepwater port, 

or to deepwater ports generally, indicate 

that a higher limit is needed. 

(c) Requests to adjust the limit of 

liability for a deepwater port under this 

subpart must be submitted to the 

Commandant (CG–5P). Requests to 

adjust the limits of liability may be 

submitted with a license application or 

upon receipt of a license from MARAD 

to construct and operate the proposed 

deepwater port. If the request for 

adjustment is submitted with the license 

application, no action will be taken on 

the request until MARAD issues a 

license to construct and operate the 

proposed deepwater port. 

(d) Requests to adjust the limit of 

liability under this subpart must include 

a risk analysis of the deepwater port to 

determine its maximum probable oil 

discharge and an economic analysis to 

determine the OPA 90 responsible party 

removal costs and OPA 90 removal costs 

and damages for which the responsible 

party is liable under 33 U.S.C. 2702 that 

could result from such a spill. 

(1) The risk analysis must, as 

applicable, consider the following 

factors: 

(i) Deepwater port oil handling, 

storage, transfer, and transportation 

capacity and practices. 

(ii) Type of oil handled. 

(iii) Physical layout and condition of 

the deepwater port. 

(iv) On-site oil spill response 

capability. 

(v) Oil spill history of the deepwater 

port. 

(vi) The pipeline oil leak detection 

system. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19150 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(vii) Section-by-section pipeline 

analysis of credible oil spill scenarios. 

(viii) Other oil spills for which the 

deepwater port might be solely or 

jointly liable (such as tanker spills). 

(2) The economic analysis must, as 

applicable, consider the following 

factors for the maximum credible spill: 

(i) Spill trajectories. 

(ii) Potential responsible party 

removal costs. 

(iii) Potential removal costs and 

damages for which the responsible party 

is liable under 33 U.S.C. 2702. 

Subpart H—Environmental Review 

Criteria for Deepwater Ports 

■ 23. Amend § 148.707 as follows: 

■ a. Revise the section heading and 

paragraph (b) introductory text; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(1)(i), before the 

word ‘‘endangered’’, add the words 

‘‘threatened and’’, and after the word 

‘‘species’’, add the words ‘‘and critical 

habitats’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the 

word ‘‘sanctuaries’’ and add, in its 

place, the words ‘‘protected areas’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(1)(vii), remove the 

word ‘‘and’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(1)(viii), remove the 

symbol ‘‘.’’, and add, in its place, the 

symbol ‘‘;’’; and 

■ f. Add paragraphs (b)(1)(ix) and (x). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 148.707 What type of criteria will be used 

in an environmental evaluation and how will 

they be applied? 

* * * * * 

(b) The environmental evaluation will 

be applied to the phases of construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of the 

proposed action and alternatives. 

Alternatives must consider alternate 

siting of the deepwater port as well as 

different technologies and pipeline 

routes. The evaluation will assess: 

(1) * * * 

(ix) Marine, coastal, and migratory 

birds; and 

(x) Marine mammals and fisheries. 

* * * * * 

§ 148.715 [Amended] 

■ 24. Amend § 148.715 as follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, remove the 

word ‘‘reasonable’’ and add, in its place, 

the words ‘‘a reasonable range of’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), after the word 

‘‘assessment’’ and before the comma, 

add the words ‘‘including, but not 

limited to, geographic relevance, age of 

data used (generally no more than 5 

years at the time of submission) and 

methods of data analysis’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (a), remove the text ‘‘; 

and’’ and add, in its place a period. 

§ 148.720 [Amended] 

■ 25. Amend § 148.720(k) by adding the 

words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’ after the 

word ‘‘including’’. 

§ 148.725 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend § 148.725 introductory text 

by removing the word ‘‘reasonable’’ and 

adding, in its place, the words ‘‘a 

reasonable range of’’. 

§ 148.730 [Amended] 

■ 27. Amend § 148.730 as follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, remove the 

word ‘‘reasonable’’ and add, in its place, 

the words ‘‘a reasonable range of’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (a), remove the words 

‘‘from appropriate State agencies for any 

designated Adjacent Coastal State’’ and 

add, in its place, the words ‘‘described 

in § 148.105(j) of this part’’. 

§ 148.735 [Amended] 

■ 28. Amend § 148.735 introductory text 

by removing the word ‘‘reasonable’’ and 

adding, in its place, the words ‘‘a 

reasonable range of’’. 

■ 29. Revise § 148.737 to read as 

follows: 

§ 148.737 What environmental statutes 

must an applicant follow? 

In constructing and operating a 

deepwater port, the deepwater port 

must comply with all applicable 

Federal, State, and tribal environmental 

statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s). 

For the purposes of information only, a 

non-exhaustive list of Federal 

environmental statutes and E.O.s is 

available online via a Coast Guard Web 

site: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/ 

cg5225/. 

PART 149—DEEPWATER PORTS: 

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 30. The authority citation for part 149 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1504; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 

(75). 

§§ 149.306–149.315 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 31. Remove and reserve §§ 149.306 

through 149.315. 

§§ 149.100–149.700 [Redesignated] 

■ 32. Redesignate §§ 149.100 through 

149.700 as shown in the following table: 

Old section, 

old subpart 

New section, 

new subpart 

149.100, B 149.100, C 

149.103, B 149.105, C 

149.105, B 149.110, C 

149.110, B 149.115, C 

149.115, B 149.120, C 

Old section, 

old subpart 

New section, 

new subpart 

149.120, B 149.125, C 

149.125, B 149.130, C 

149.130, B 149.135, C 

149.135, B 149.140, C 

149.140, B 149.64, B

149.145, B 149.150, C 

149.300, C 149.200, D 

149.301, C 149.201, D 

149.302, C 149.202, D 

149.303, C 149.203, D 

149.304, C 149.204, D 

149.305, C 149.205, D 

149.316, C 149.207, D 

149.317, C 149.208, D 

149.318, C 149.209, D 

149.319, C 149.210, D 

149.320, C 149.211, D 

149.321, C 149.212, D 

149.322, C 149.213, D 

149.323, C 149.214, D 

149.324, C 149.215, D 

149.325, C 149.216, D 

149.326, C 149.217, D 

149.327, C 149.218, D 

149.328, C 149.219, D 

149.329, C 149.220, D 

149.330, C 149.221, D 

149.331, C 149.222, D 

149.332, C 149.223, D 

149.333, C 149.224, D 

149.334, C 149.225, D 

149.335, C 149.226, D 

149.336, C 149.227, D 

149.337, C 149.228, D 

149.338, C 149.229, D 

149.339, C 149.230, D 

149.340, C 149.231, D 

149.400, D 149.300, E 

149.401, D 149.301, E 

149.402, D 149.302, E 

149.403, D 149.303, E 

149.404, D 149.304, E 

149.405, D 149.305, E 

149.406, D 149.306, E 

149.407, D 149.307, E 

149.408, D 149.308, E 

149.409, D 149.309, E 

149.410, D 149.310, E 

149.411, D 149.311, E 

149.412, D 149.312, E 

149.413, D 149.313, E 

149.414, D 149.314, E 

149.415, D 149.315, E 

149.416, D 149.316, E 

149.417, D 149.317, E 

149.418, D 149.318, E 

149.419, D 149.319, E 

149.420, D 149.320, E 

149.421, D 149.321, E 

149.500, E 149.400, F 

149.505, E 149.405, F 

149.510, E 149.410, F 

149.520, E 149.420, F 

149.535, E 149.435, F 

149.540, E 149.440, F 

149.550, E 149.450, F 

149.560, E 149.460, F 

149.565, E 149.465, F 

149.570, E 149.470, F 

149.575, E 149.475, F 

149.580, E 149.480, F 

149.585, E 149.485, F 

149.600, F 149.50, B


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19151 

Old section, 

old subpart 

New section, 

new subpart 

149.610, F 149.20, A

149.615, F 149.51, B

149.620, F 149.53, B

149.625, F 149.52, B

149.640, F 149.60, B

149.641, F 149.61, B

149.655, F 149.62, B

149.660, F 149.63, B

149.665, F 149.65, B

149.670, F 149.66, B

149.675, F 149.67, B

149.680, F 149.68, B

149.685, F 149.69, B

149.690, F 149.70, B

149.691, F 149.71, B

149.692, F 149.72, B

149.693, F 149.73, B

149.694, F 149.74, B

149.695, F 149.75, B

149.696, F 149.76, B

149.697, F 149.77, B

149.700, F 149.78, B

■ 33. Revise § 149.5 to read as follows: 

§ 149.5 What definitions apply to this part? 

Definitions applicable to this part 

appear in 33 CFR 148.5. 

§ 149.15 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 34. Remove and reserve § 149.15. 

§ 149.20 [Amended] 

■ 35. In newly redesignated § 149.20, 

paragraph (a), after the text ‘‘(SPM)’’, 

add the words ‘‘, or submerged turret 

loading (STL) buoy’’. 

■ 36. Revise the heading of subpart B to 

read as follows: 

Subpart B—Design, Construction, 

Operations, and Equipment 

§ 149.50 [Amended] 

■ 37. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.50 by adding the words ‘‘the 

design, construction, operations, and’’ 

after the words ‘‘requirements for’’, and 

by removing the words ‘‘and design’’ 

after the word ‘‘equipment’’. 

§ 149.51 [Amended] 

■ 38. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.51(b) by adding the words ‘‘in the 

U.S., or an engineer possessing 

equivalent qualifications in a foreign 

country as approved by the 

Commandant (CG–5P),’’ after the words 

‘‘professional engineer’’. 

■ 39. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.52 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), after the text 

‘‘(CG–5P)’’ add the words ‘‘or the 

accepted certifying entity’’; and 

■ b. Add paragraph (d). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 149.52 What are the design standards? 

* * * * * 

(d) The appropriateness of the design 

of a deepwater port, or its components, 

may be shown by its compliance with 

standards generally used within the 

offshore industry that are at least 

equivalent to rules established by any 

recognized classification society as 

defined in 46 CFR 8.100. Based on the 

design, complexity, and location of a 

deepwater port, the Commandant (CG– 

5P) will determine, in coordination with 

the applicant or licensee, as appropriate, 

the components to be included in 

classification society certification or 

classification certificate. This 

coordination should start early in the 

process, especially in the case of 

manned fixed or floating structures. 

■ 40. Add § 149.54 to read as follows: 

§ 149.54 What is the process for 

submitting alterations and modifications 

affecting the design, construction, and 

operations of a deepwater port? 

(a) Alterations and modifications 

affecting the design and construction of 

a deepwater port must be submitted to 

the Commandant (CG–5P) for review 

and approval if— 

(1) A license has not yet been issued; 

or 

(2) A license has been issued but the 

deepwater port has not commenced 

operations; or 

(3) The alterations and modifications 

are deemed a major conversion; or 

(4) The alterations or modifications 

substantially change the manner in 

which the deepwater port operates or 

are not in accordance with a condition 

of the license. 

(b) All other alterations and 

modifications to the deepwater port 

must be submitted to the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority for review 

and approval. 

(c) Approval for alterations and 

modifications proposed after a license 

has been issued will be contingent upon 

whether the proposed changes will 

affect the way the deepwater port 

operates, or any conditions imposed in 

the license. 

(d) The licensee is not authorized to 

proceed with alterations prior to 

approval from the Commandant (CG– 

5P) for the conditions outlined in 

paragraph (a) and for approval by the 

cognizant Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority as required in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(e) During the review and approval 

process of a proposed alteration or 

modification, the Commandant (CG–5P) 

may consult with the Marine Safety 

Center and cooperating Federal agencies 

possessing relevant technical expertise. 

■ 41. Add § 149.57 to read as follows: 

§ 149.57 What is the review and approval 

process for the design, construction, and 

commissioning for Deepwater Ports for 

operation? 

(a) The Coast Guard is responsible for 

ensuring that all aspects of a deepwater 

port are in compliance with appropriate 

standards and requirements. The Coast 

Guard review of a proposed deepwater 

port ends at, and includes, the last 

downstream valve of the pipeline end 

manifold (PLEM) for each single point 

mooring-oil transfer system (SPM–OTS) 

or single point mooring-natural gas 

transfer system (SPM–NGTS) (last 

downstream valve prior to connecting to 

a pipeline). The main gas transmission 

lines to shore or to offshore pipeline 

infrastructure, and the flowlines or 

gathering lines connecting multiple 

SPM–OTSs or SPM–NGTSs, fall under 

the jurisdiction of PHMSA. 

(b) The Commandant (CG–5P) will 

coordinate the review and approval for 

operations for the Coast Guard and other 

Federal and State agencies as necessary. 

(c) Depending on project complexity, 

construction, and installation timing, 

the Commandant (CG–5P) will 

determine, with input from the licensee, 

when the review process should be 

initiated and when the certifying entity 

(CE), if used, should be nominated, 

approved and engaged. The CE may also 

be the classification society being used 

as described in 33 CFR 149.52(d). 

(d) Final approval to commence 

commissioning and operations of the 

deepwater port will come from the 

Commandant (CG–5P). This approval 

may contain additional conditions that 

must be satisfied once the deepwater 

port is operational. Once Commandant 

(CG–5P) has granted the deepwater port 

clearance to operate, the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority will exercise 

day to day oversight. 

■ 42. Add § 149.58 to read as follows: 

§ 149.58 What is the role of the certifying 

entity in the review and approval process 

for the design, construction, and 

commissioning for Deepwater Ports for 

operation? 

(a) A certifying entity (CE), contracted 

by the licensee but under the direction 

of and acting for the Coast Guard, may 

assist in the review and verification of 

each phase (i.e., the design, 

construction, and operations) of a 

deepwater port. If a CE is used, the CE’s 

review must include a recommendation 

to the Commandant (CG–5P) on the 

sufficiency of a deepwater port’s design 

basis and selected drawings, plans, or 

analysis and procedure. Review for each 

phase may require on-site inspections at 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19152 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

fabrication locations and during 

construction and installation. The 

Commandant (CG–5P) is the final 

approval authority for the deepwater 

port’s design, construction, and 

commissioning. 

(1) Design phase, including the design 

basis. The design basis must identify all 

baseline design standards, regulations, 

rules and/or codes, and key parameters 

to be used to design each structure, 

system, or component of the deepwater 

port. 

(2) Construction phase, including 

fabrication, installation, and 

commissioning. 

(3) Operational phase, including 

maintenance and inspection procedures 

and long-term support from 

commencement of operations to 

decommissioning of the deepwater port. 

(b) The licensee must provide to the 

Commandant (CG–5P), and to a CE, if 

used, the design basis and lists of 

drawings, plans, calculations, analyses, 

procedures, and correspondence as 

determined in the review. 

(c) If a CE is used, key responsibilities 

for the CE include, but are not limited 

to— 

(1) Recommendation of approval, 

disapproval, or approval with proposed 

changes of the applicant’s design basis; 

(2) Development of an action plan for 

each phase; 

(3) Providing selected drawings and 

plan reviews; 

(4) Inspections and oversight; 

(5) Interim reports and 

recommendations; and 

(6) A final report and 

recommendation for Coast Guard 

approval or disapproval. 

(d) The CE may also be used to assist 

in the review of such areas as— 

(1) A maintenance and inspection 

program; 

(2) System safety, including 

interoperability, reliability, safety 

integrity levels, and LNG carrier 

compatibility; 

(3) Specific, higher-risk components 

and operations; and 

(4) Pipeline design, installation and 

operations manual (The applicant must 

coordinate the review and approval of 

the pipeline appendix to the operations 

manual with PHMSA). 

(e) At the option of the licensee, the 

CE may continue to support the review 

and approval process for a deepwater 

port through to its decommissioning. 

§ 149.63 [Amended] 

■ 43. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.63(a) introductory text by 

removing the words ‘‘pumping platform 

complex’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘manned deepwater port’’. 

§ 149.64 [Amended] 

■ 44. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.64(b) by removing the symbol ‘‘,’’ 

after the word ‘‘side’’ and adding, in its 

place, the words ‘‘facilities, vessels 

approaching the safety zone,’’. 

§ 149.65 [Amended] 

■ 45. In newly redesignated § 149.65, 

wherever they appear, remove the 

words ‘‘pumping platform complex’’ 

and add, in their place, the words 

‘‘manned deepwater port’’. 

§ 149.66 [Amended] 

■ 46. In newly redesignated § 149.66, 

paragraph (b), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.665’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.65’’. 

§ 149.67 [Amended] 

■ 47. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.67(a) as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘For a’’ and add, 

in their place, the word ‘‘Each’’; 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘, each pumping 

platform complex’’; and 

■ c. After the words ‘‘on the’’, remove 

the word ‘‘complex’’ and add, in its 

place, the words ‘‘deepwater port’’. 

§ 149.68 [Amended] 

■ 48. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.68 by adding the word ‘‘manned’’ 

before the word ‘‘deepwater’’ in the 

introductory text. 

§ 149.70 [Amended] 

■ 49. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.70 by removing the word 

‘‘outlined’’ and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘specified’’, and by removing the 

text ‘‘§§ 149.691 through 149.699’’ and 

adding, in its place, the text ‘‘§§ 149.71 

through 149.77’’. 

§ 149.77 [Amended] 

■ 50. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.77(a) by removing the word 

‘‘owner’s’’ and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘operator’s’’. 

■ 51. Revise the heading for subpart C 

to read as follows: 

Subpart C—Pollution Prevention 

Equipment 

§ 149.115 [Amended] 

■ 52. In newly redesignated § 149.115, 

remove the words ‘‘from the pumping 

platform complex’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘remotely’’. 

§ 149.130 [Amended] 

■ 53. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.130(a) by removing the words ‘‘a 

pumping platform complex’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words ‘‘the 

marine transfer area of a deepwater 

port’’. 

§ 149.135 [Amended] 

■ 54. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.135 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

after the word ‘‘alarm’’, add the words 

‘‘described in paragraph (a) of this 

section’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the 

words ‘‘pumping platform complex’’ 

and add, in their place, the words 

‘‘marine transfer area of a deepwater 

port’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘pumping platform complex’’ 

and add, in their place, the words 

‘‘marine transfer area of a deepwater 

port’’, and before the word ‘‘under’’, add 

the word ‘‘described’’. 

§ 149.150 [Amended] 

■ 55. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.150 by removing the words 

‘‘pumping platform complex’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words 

‘‘manned deepwater port’’. 

■ 56. Revise the heading for subpart D 

to read as follows: 

Subpart D—Lifesaving Equipment 

§ 149.203 [Amended] 

■ 57. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.203 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.306’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.206’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.308’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.208’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.314’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.206’’. 

§ 149.204 [Amended] 

■ 58. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.204 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), in the introductory 

text, remove the text ‘‘§ 149.305’’ and 

add, in its place, the text ‘‘§ 149.205’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.305’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.205’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(5), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.314’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.206’’. 

§ 149.205 [Amended] 

■ 59. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.205 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.304’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.204’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.308’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.208’’. 

■ 60. Add § 149.206 to read as follows: 

§ 149.206 What are the requirements for 

survival craft and rescue boats? 

Survival craft and rescue boats must 

satisfy the requirements of 46 CFR 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19153 

108.520–108.575, except as described in 

paragraphs (a) through (g) of this 

section. 

(a) Except for boathooks, the survival 

equipment required by 46 CFR 

108.575(b) must be securely stowed in 

the lifeboat. 

(b) Each lifeboat must have a list of 

the survival equipment it is required to 

carry. The list must be posted in the 

lifeboat. 

(c) Except as provided in § 149.205(b) 

of this part, each inflatable or rigid 

liferaft, boarded from a deck that is 

more than 4.5 meters (14.75 feet) above 

the water, must be davit-launched or 

served by a marine evacuation system 

approved under approval series 

160.175. 

(d) The launching equipment must be 

arranged so that a loaded liferaft does 

not have to be lifted before it is lowered. 

(e) Not more than two liferafts may be 

launched from the same set of launching 

equipment. 

(f) The operator must arrange survival 

craft so that they are— 

(1) Readily accessible in an 

emergency; 

(2) Accessible for inspection, 

maintenance, and testing; 

(3) In locations clear of overboard 

discharge piping or openings, and of 

obstructions below; and 

(4) Located so that survival craft with 

an aggregate capacity to accommodate 

all persons authorized to be berthed are 

readily accessible from the personnel 

berthing area. 

(g) The operator may use an onboard 

crane to launch a rescue boat if the 

crane’s launching system meets the 

requirements of this section. 

§ 149.209 [Amended] 

■ 61. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.209 by removing the text 

‘‘§ 149.316’’ and adding, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.207’’. 

§ 149.210 [Amended] 

■ 62. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.210 by removing the text 

‘‘§ 149.317’’ and adding, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.208’’. 

§ 149.216 [Amended] 

■ 63. In newly redesignated § 149.216, 

remove the text ‘‘§ 149.140’’ and add, in 

its place, the text ‘‘§ 149.64’’. 

§ 149.221 [Amended] 

■ 64. In newly redesignated 

§ 149.221(a), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.326’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.217’’. 

§ 149.227 [Amended] 

■ 65. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.227(a) by removing the text 

‘‘§ 149.316’’ and adding, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.217’’. 

§ 149.228 [Amended] 

■ 66. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.228(a) by removing the text 

‘‘§ 149.320’’ and adding, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.211’’. 

■ 67. Revise the heading for subpart E 

to read as follows: 

Subpart E—Firefighting and Fire 

Protection Equipment 

■ 68. Revise newly redesignated 

§ 149.302 to read as follows: 

§ 149.302 What firefighting and fire 

protection equipment must be approved by 

the Coast Guard? 

Unless approval from the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority, is requested 

and granted pursuant to § 149.303 of 

this part and as permitted under 

§ 149.303, § 149.315(c) or (d), 

§ 149.319(a)(1), or § 149.320 of this part, 

all required firefighting and fire 

protection equipment on a deepwater 

port must be approved by the 

Commandant (CG–ENG). Firefighting 

and fire protection equipment that 

exceeds required equipment must also 

be approved by the Commandant (CG– 

ENG). 

■ 69. Revise the section heading for 

newly redesignated § 149.303 to read as 

follows: 

§ 149.303 How may the operator request 

the use of alternate or supplemental 

firefighting and fire prevention equipment 

or procedures? 

* * * * * 

■ 70. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.304 as follows: 

■ a. Revise the section heading; and 

■ b. Remove the text ‘‘§ 149.403’’ and 

add, in its place, the text ‘‘§ 149.303’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 149.304 Can the operator use firefighting 

equipment that has no Coast Guard 

standards? 

* * * * * 

§ 149.305 [Amended] 

■ 71. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.305 by removing the text 

‘‘149.405’’ wherever it appears, and 

adding, in each place, the text 

‘‘149.305’’. 

§ 149.307 [Amended] 

■ 72. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.307 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.409’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.309’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.409’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.309’’. 

§ 149.309 [Amended] 

■ 73. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.309 by removing the text 

‘‘149.409’’ wherever it appears, and 

adding, in each place, the text 

‘‘149.309’’. 

§ 149.310 [Amended] 

■ 74. In newly redesignated § 149.310, 

remove the text ‘‘149.409’’ and add, in 

its place, the text ‘‘149.309’’. 

§ 149.315 [Amended] 

■ 75. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.315(a) by removing the words 

‘‘pumping platform complex’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words 

‘‘manned deepwater port’’. 

§ 149.317 [Amended] 

■ 76. In newly redesignated 

§ 149.317(b), remove the text ‘‘149.409’’ 

and add, in its place, the text ‘‘149.309’’. 

§ 149.318 [Amended] 

■ 77. In newly redesignated § 149.318, 

remove the text ‘‘149.409’’ and add, in 

its place, the text ‘‘149.309’’. 

§ 149.319 [Amended] 

■ 78. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 149.319 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 

remove the text ‘‘§ 149.420’’ and add, in 

its place, the text ‘‘§ 149.320’’ and 

remove the text ‘‘§ 149.421’’ and add, in 

its place, the text ‘‘§ 149.321’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.415’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.315’’. 

■ 79. Revise the heading for subpart F 

to read as follows: 

Subpart F—Aids to Navigation 

§ 149.405 [Amended] 

■ 80. In newly redesignated 

§ 149.405(a), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.510’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.410’’. 

§ 149.410 [Amended] 

■ 81. In newly redesignated 

§ 149.410(a), remove the text 

‘‘Commandant (CG–5P)’’ and add, in its 

place, the words ‘‘Coast Guard District 

Commander in the area where the 

deepwater port will be built’’. 

§ 149.470 [Amended] 

■ 82. In newly redesignated 

§ 149.470(c), remove the text 

‘‘§ 149.540’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 149.440’’. 

§ 149.480 [Amended] 

■ 83. In newly redesignated 

§ 149.480(a), remove the words ‘‘of a 

pumping platform complex’’. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19154 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

§ 149.485 [Amended] 

■ 84. In redesignated § 149.485(a), 

remove the words ‘‘pumping platform 

complex’’ and add, in their place, the 

words ‘‘deepwater port’’. 

§ 149.650 [Removed] 

■ 85. Remove § 149.650. 

PART 150—DEEPWATER PORTS: 

OPERATIONS 

■ 86. The authority citation for part 150 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1)(C), 

(j)(5), (j)(6), (m)(2); 33 U.S.C. 1509(a); E.O. 

12777, sec. 2; E.O. 13286, sec. 34, 68 FR 

10619; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1(70), (73), (75), (80). 

■ 87. Amend § 150.10 by revising 

paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 150.10 What are the general 

requirements for operations manuals? 

* * * * * 

(b) The operations manual is reviewed 

and approved by the Commandant (CG– 

5P), in coordination with the local 

Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander, with COTP and OCMI 

authority, as meeting the requirements 

of the Act and this subchapter. 

(c) The manual must be readily 

available on the deepwater port for use 

by personnel. 

(d) The licensee must ensure that all 

personnel are trained and follow the 

procedures in the manual while at the 

deepwater port. 

(e) Every 5 years from the date of 

approval of the operations manual 

(unless a longer timeframe is approved 

by the Commandant (CG–5P)), a 

deepwater port operator must re-submit 

the operations manual to the 

Commandant (CG–5P) to be re-reviewed 

and re-approved. 

■ 88. Amend § 150.15 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’; 

■ b. In paragraphs (d) introductory text, 

(m) introductory text, and in newly 

redesignated paragraph (q) introductory 

text, after the word ‘‘including’’, add the 

words ‘‘, but not limited to’’; 

■ c. In paragraphs (i) introductory text, 

(i)(4), after the word ‘‘including’’, add 

the words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (i)(4)(vii), remove the 

words ‘‘a safety zone, area to be 

avoided, and anchorage area’’ and add, 

in their place, the words ‘‘zones and 

areas described under subpart J of this 

part’’; 

■ e. In paragraphs (i)(7), (l) introductory 

text, and (l)(1)(iii), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (l)(2)(iii), remove the 

word ‘‘to’’ and add, in its place, the 

words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (l)(4), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’; 

■ h. In paragraphs (m) introductory text, 

and in newly redesignated paragraph (q) 

introductory text, after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to’’; 

■ i. Redesignate paragraphs (o) through 

(aa) as (p) through (bb), respectively; 

■ j. Add new paragraph (o); 

■ k. In newly redesignated paragraphs 

(s), (u)(3), and (x)(2)(iii), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’; 

■ l. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (y) and (bb); and 

■ m. Add paragraph (cc); 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 150.15 What must the operations manual 

include? 

* * * * * 

(o) A certificate of adequacy (COA) 

that certifies a deepwater port meets the 

requirements for reception facilities as 

required under 33 CFR part 158, or a 

waiver of a COA. 

* * * * * 

(y) Security procedures—(1) Security 

plan. Deepwater port operators must 

develop a deepwater port security plan 

comparable, at a minimum, to those 

required by 33 CFR part 106. The plan 

must address at least: 

(i) Access controls for goods and 

materials and access controls for 

personnel that require positive and 

verifiable identification; 

(ii) Monitoring and alerting of vessels 

that approach or enter the deepwater 

port’s security zone; 

(iii) Risk identification and 

procedures for detecting and deterring 

terrorist or subversive activity, such as 

security lighting and remotely-alarmed 

restricted areas; 

(iv) Internal and external notification 

and response requirements in the event 

of a perceived threat or an attack on the 

deepwater port; 

(v) Designation of the deepwater port 

security officer (DPSO); 

(vi) Required security training and 

drills for all personnel; and 

(vii) The scalability of actions and 

procedures for the various levels of 

threat. 

(2) Audits. (i) The DPSO must ensure 

an audit of the deepwater port security 

plan is performed annually, beginning 

no later than one year from the initial 

date of approval and attach a letter to 

the deepwater port security plan 

certifying that the deepwater port 

security plan meets the applicable 

requirements of this part. The results of 

this audit must be included as an 

attachment to the annual self-inspection 

report to the cognizant Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority as outlined 

in § 150.105 of this part. 

(ii) If there is a change in ownership 

or operations of the deepwater port, or 

if there have been modifications to the 

deepwater port, the deepwater port 

security plan must be audited including 

but not limited to physical structure, 

emergency response procedures, 

security measures, or operations. 

(iii) Auditing the deepwater port 

security plan, as a result of 

modifications to the deepwater port, 

may be limited to those sections of the 

deepwater port security plan affected by 

the deepwater port modifications. 

(iv) Unless impracticable due to the 

size and nature of the company or the 

deepwater port, personnel conducting 

internal audits of the security measures 

specified in the deepwater port security 

plan or evaluating its implementation 

must— 

(A) Have knowledge of methods of 

conducting audits and inspections, and 

control and monitoring techniques; 

(B) Not have regularly assigned 

security duties; and 

(C) Be independent of any security 

measures being audited. 

(v) If the results of an audit require an 

amendment of the deepwater port 

security plan, the DPSO must submit 

the proposed amendment to the 

cognizant Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, with copy to the 

Commandant (CG–5P), for review and 

approval no later than 30 days after 

completion of the audit. 

(3) Review. The Sector Commander, or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, will normally perform an 

annual security inspection to verify the 

findings in the audit. The Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority, will perform 

a more detailed deepwater port security 

plan review at prescribed 5-year 

intervals following initial approval of 

the deepwater port security plan and 

will include onsite inspection of 

personnel assignments and 

qualifications, observance of security 

drills, and other security exercises as 

necessary. 

* * * * * 

(bb) Environmental procedures. A 

prevention, monitoring, and mitigation 

program (PMMP) that provides 

procedures to prevent, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse environmental effects 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19155 

resulting from the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of the 

deepwater port. This must include both 

routine scheduled maintenance 

activities as well as unscheduled 

maintenance activities. 

(1) Environmental monitoring 

program. The PMMP must include a 

detailed environmental monitoring 

program plan. It must be performancebased, and include provisions for 

incorporating recommendations for 

adaptive management based upon 

analysis of data obtained from 

monitoring studies. The PMMP must 

also include provisions for periodic reexamination of the physical, chemical, 

and biological factors investigated 

during the baseline surveys contained in 

the licensee’s deepwater port license 

application. 

(i) Monitoring must commence 

shortly before project construction in 

the vicinity of the construction sites and 

other potentially impacted areas and 

continue throughout the construction 

phase. 

(ii) During project operations, a 

continuous monitoring program 

designed to ensure coverage of seasonal 

variations must be undertaken. 

(2) Review. Every 5 years (unless a 

longer timeframe is approved by the 

Commandant (CG–5P)), to coincide with 

the periodic review of the deepwater 

port’s operations manual, the licensee 

must conduct a thorough reexamination of the physical, chemical, 

and biological factors contained in the 

deepwater port’s environmental 

evaluation. 

(i) The re-examination must include, 

but not be limited to, a detailed analysis 

of the results of the environmental 

monitoring program to identify trends 

and impacts that result from the 

deepwater port’s operations. 

(ii) The re-examination must be 

submitted for review and approval to 

the Commandant (CG–5P) and MARAD 

not later than 60 days before the 5 year 

period ends. 

(cc) Procedural manual for 

operations, maintenance, and 

emergencies of the deepwater port 

pipelines. This manual must meet the 

requirements of PHMSA regulations 49 

CFR 192.605 and other applicable parts 

of 49 CFR 190 through 199. 

■ 89. Amend § 150.25 as follows: 

■ a. Revise the section heading; 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (d), (e), and 

(f) as paragraphs (c)(2), (d), and (e), 

respectively; 

■ c. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(2); 

■ d. Add paragraph (c)(1); 

■ e. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (e); 

■ f. Add new paragraph (f); and 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 150.25 When will the Coast Guard 

require amendments to the operations 

manual? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) If the Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority determines that the proposed 

amendments are inadequate, the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority, will return 

them to the licensee for revision. 

(2) If the Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, decides that a proposed 

amendment is adequate, the amendment 

will go into effect 60 days after the 

Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, notifies the licensee, with 

copy to the Commandant (CG–5P). The 

Commandant (CG–5P) will notify 

MARAD, and PHMSA as appropriate, 

prior to a significant amendment going 

into effect. 

* * * * * 

(e) If the Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, finds that a particular 

situation requires immediate action to 

prevent a spill or discharge, or to protect 

the safety of life and property, he or she 

may issue an amendment effective on 

the date that the licensee receives it. 

The Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, must include a brief 

statement of the reasons for the 

immediate amendment. The licensee 

may petition the District Commander for 

review, but the petition does not delay 

the effective date of the amendment. 

(f) Other Federal agencies may 

propose amendments to the operations 

manual by submitting them to the Coast 

Guard’s Office of Operating and 

Environmental Standards (CG–OES), 

which will coordinate with the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority, to have the 

licensee implement requested 

amendments. 

■ 90. Revise § 150.30 to read as follows: 

§ 150.30 How may the licensee propose an 

amendment to the operations manual? 

(a) Proposed amendments to an 

approved operations manual must be 

submitted to the Sector Commander, or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, in whose area of 

responsibility the deepwater port is 

located, with copy to the Commandant 

(CG–5P). The Commandant (CG–5P) 

will notify MARAD prior to approval of 

proposed significant amendments to the 

operations manual to ensure approval 

accords with the conditions of the 

deepwater port’s license. If the proposed 

changes are not consistent with the 

requirements of any license condition, 

the environmental impact analysis, or 

any other Federal or State license or 

approval, the Commandant (CG–5P) 

must notify the Sector Commander, or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority of this inconsistency 

immediately. Sector Commander, or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority approval of the proposed 

changes will be withheld until the 

identified inconsistencies are resolved. 

(b) The licensee may propose an 

amendment to the operations manual— 

(1) By submitting to the Sector 

Commander, or to the MSU Commander 

with COTP and OCMI authority, in 

writing, the amendments and reasons 

for the amendments, not less than 30 

days before the requested effective date 

of the amendment; or 

(2) If the amendment is needed 

immediately, by submitting the 

amendment, and reasons why the 

amendment is needed immediately, to 

the Sector Commander, or to the MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority in writing. 

(c) The Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, in coordination with the 

Commandant (CG–5P), must respond to 

a proposed amendment by notifying the 

licensee of his or her decision, in 

writing, before the requested date of the 

amendment. If the request is 

disapproved, the Sector Commander, or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority must include the reasons for 

disapproval in the notice. If the request 

is for an immediate amendment, the 

Sector Commander, or the MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority must respond as soon as 

possible. 

■ 91. Revise § 150.35 to read as follows: 

§ 150.35 How may an Adjacent Coastal 

State request an amendment to the 

deepwater port operations manual? 

(a) An Adjacent Coastal State 

connected by pipeline to the deepwater 

port may petition the cognizant Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority, with copy to 

the Commandant (CG–5P), to amend 

deepwater port operations. The petition 

must include sufficient information to 

allow the Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority to reach a decision concerning 

the proposed amendment. 

(b) After the Sector Commander, or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

authority receives a petition, the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority, in 

coordination with the Commandant 

(CG–5P), requests comments from the 

licensee. 

(c) After reviewing the petition and 

comments and considering the costs and 

benefits involved, the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority, in 

coordination with the Commandant 

(CG–5P), may approve the petition if the 

proposed amendment will provide 

equivalent or improved protection and 

safety. The Adjacent Coastal State may 

petition the Commandant (CG–5P) to 

review the decision. Petitions must be 

made in writing and presented to the 

Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority for forwarding to the 

Commandant (CG–5P) via the District 

Commander. 

■ 92. Revise § 150.40 to read as follows: 

§ 150.40 Deviating from the operations 

manual. 

(a) If, because of a particular situation, 

the licensee needs to deviate from the 

operations manual, the licensee must 

submit a written request to the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority explaining 

why the deviation is necessary and what 

alternative is proposed. If the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander with 

COTP and OCMI authority determines 

that the deviation would ensure 

equivalent or greater protection and 

safety, the Sector Commander, or MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority will authorize the deviation 

and notify the licensee in writing. 

(b) In an emergency, any person may 

deviate from any requirement in this 

subchapter, or any procedure in the 

operations manual, to ensure the safety 

of life, property, or the environment. 

Each deviation must be reported to the 

Sector Commander, or to the MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority at the earliest possible time. 

§ 150.45 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 93. Remove and reserve § 150.45. 

■ 94. Amend § 150.50 by revising the 

section heading to read as follows: 

§ 150.50 What are the requirements for a 

deepwater port spill response plan? 

* * * * * 

■ 95. Revise § 150.100 to read as 

follows: 

§ 150.100 What are the requirements for 

inspecting deepwater ports? 

(a) Under direction of the Sector 

Commander, or MSU Commander, with 

COTP and OCMI authority, marine 

inspectors may inspect deepwater ports 

to determine whether the requirements 

of this subchapter are met. A marine 

inspector may conduct an inspection, 

with or without advance notice, at any 

time the Sector Commander or MSU 

Commander deems necessary. 

(b) During an inspection, Coast Guard 

marine inspectors may be accompanied 

by representatives of other Federal 

agencies. 

■ 96. Revise § 150.105 to read as 

follows: 

§ 150.105 What are the requirements for 

annual self-inspection? 

(a) The operator of each deepwater 

port must ensure that the deepwater 

port is regularly inspected to determine 

whether the facility is in compliance 

with the requirements of the approved 

operations manual, the license, and any 

classification society certifications. To 

this end, a deepwater port operator may 

propose to the Sector Commander, or to 

the MSU Commander, with COTP and 

OCMI authority, to implement a selfinspection program. Prior to the 

initiation of a self-inspection program, 

and before commencement of 

operations, the owner or operator must 

submit a proposal describing the selfinspection plan to the Sector 

Commander, or to the MSU 

Commander, with COTP and OCMI 

authority for acceptance. The plan must 

address all applicable requirements 

outlined in parts 149 and 150 of this 

subchapter. Any proposed program 

must include inspection intervals not to 

exceed 12 months between inspections. 

The inspection may be conducted up to 

2 months after its due date, but will be 

valid for only the 12 months following 

that due date. 

(b) The operator must record and 

submit the results of the annual selfinspection to the Sector Commander, or 

to the MSU Commander with COTP and 

OCMI authority, within 30 days of 

completing the inspection. The report 

must include a description of any 

failure, and the scope of repairs made to 

components or equipment, in 

accordance with the requirements in 

subpart I of this part, other than primary 

lifesaving, firefighting, or transfer 

equipment, which are inspected and 

repaired in accordance with subpart F. 

(c) The Sector Commander, or the 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, must validate the results of 

each inspection. If the Sector 

Commander, or the MSU Commander 

with COTP and OCMI authority, 

determines that the deepwater port is 

not operating in conformity with its 

operations manual or license, the Sector 

Commander, or the MSU Commander 

with COTP and OCMI authority, must 

direct appropriate corrective action to 

the deepwater port operator, and the 

Sector Commander, or the MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, must notify the Commandant 

(CG–5P). After receipt of the 

notification, if the Commandant (CG– 

5P) concurs that a possible violation of 

a license condition is indicated, 

Commandant (CG–5P) will notify 

MARAD for consideration of what, if 

any, action on the license should be 

taken. 

■ 97. Add § 150.107 to read as follows: 

§ 150.107 What notice must be given in the 

event of inspections? 

The operator must notify the Sector 

Commander, or the MSU Commander 

with COTP and OCMI authority, of 

scheduled Federal and State agency 

inspections. The operator must retain 

the record of results of any Federal or 

State agency inspection and make those 

records available for review upon 

receiving a request by the Sector 

Commander, or by the MSU 

Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, or his or her designated 

representative. The Coast Guard may 

participate in any inspection 

undertaken by another Federal or State 

agency with jurisdiction. 

§ 150.110 [Amended] 

■ 98. Amend § 150.110 by removing the 

word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘class 

certificate,’’; and adding the words ‘‘, or 

of changes in class status’’ after the 

words ‘‘classification certificate’’. 

§ 150.225 [Amended] 

■ 99. In § 150.225, after the word 

‘‘hold.’’, add the sentence ‘‘All 

employees, regardless of status, must 

receive basic safety training as soon as 

practicable after reporting to the 

deepwater port.’’. 

§ 150.325 [Amended] 

■ 100. Amend § 150.325(b) introductory 

text by adding the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to’’ after the word ‘‘including’’. 

■ 101. Amend § 150.380 by revising 

Table 150.380(a) and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 150.380 Under what circumstances may 

vessels operate within the safety zone or 

area to be avoided? 

(a) * * * 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19157 

TABLE 150.380(A)—REGULATED ACTIVITIES OF VESSELS AT DEEPWATER PORTS

Regulated activities Safety zone 

Areas to be 

avoided 

around each 

deepwater 

port component 1

Anchorage 

areas 

Other ship’s 

routing 

measures 

adjacent to 

the safety 

zone 

Tankers calling at port ............................................................................................... C C C C 

Support vessel movements ....................................................................................... C C C C 

Transit by vessels other than tankers or support vessels ........................................ F D P P 

Mooring to surface components by vessels other than tankers or support vessels N N N N 

Anchoring by vessels other than tankers or support vessels ................................... N F C F 

Fishing, including, but not limited to, bottom trawl (shrimping) ................................ N D P R 

Mobile drilling operations or erection of structures 2 ................................................. N R N N 

Lightering/transshipment ........................................................................................... N N N N 

1Areas to be avoided are in subpart J of this part. 

2 Not part of Port Installation. 

3Key to regulated activities for Table 150.380(a): 

C—Movement of the vessel is permitted when cleared by the person in charge of vessel operations. 

D—Movement is not restricted, but recommended transit speed not to exceed 10 knots. Communication with the person in charge of vessel 

operations. 

F—Only in an emergency. Anchoring will be avoided in a no anchoring area except in the case of immediate danger to the ship or persons on 

board. N—Not permitted. P—Transit is permitted when the vessel is not in the immediate area of a tanker, and when cleared by the vessel traffic 

supervisor. R—Permitted only if determined that operation does not create unacceptable risk to personnel safety and security and operation. For 

transiting foreign-flag vessels, the requirement for clearance to enter the area to be avoided and no anchoring area is advisory in nature, but 

mandatory for an anchorage area established within 12 nautical miles. 

(b) If the activity is not listed in table 

150.380(a) of this section, or otherwise 

provided for in this subpart, the 

permission of the Sector Commander, or 

MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI 

authority, is required before operating in 

the safety zone or other ship’s routing 

measure. 

* * * * * 

§ 150.435 [Amended] 

■ 102. Amend § 150.435(b) by adding 

the words ‘‘, unless complying with any 

approved procedures contained in the 

operations manual to ensure the safety 

of personnel, equipment and the 

environment’’ after the word ‘‘vicinity’’. 

§ 150.501 [Amended] 

■ 103. Amend § 150.501 by adding the 

words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’ after the 

word ‘‘including’’. 

§ 150.601 [Amended] 

■ 104. Amend § 150.601(b) introductory 

text by adding the words ‘‘but not 

limited to,’’ after the word ‘‘including,’’ 

and by adding the symbol ‘‘,’’ after the 

word ‘‘subcontractors’’. 

§ 150.602 [Amended] 

■ 105. Amend § 150.602(a) by removing 

the text ‘‘§ 150.15(w)’’, and adding, in 

its place, the text ‘‘§ 150.15(x)’’. 

§ 150.607 [Amended] 

■ 106. Amend § 150.607(a) by adding 

the words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’ after 

the word ‘‘including’’ and by adding the 

symbol ‘‘,’’ after the word ‘‘gear’’. 

§ 150.615 [Amended] 

■ 107. Amend § 150.615(c) by adding 

the words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’ after 

the word ‘‘including’’. 

§ 150.618 [Amended] 

■ 108. In § 150.618(a), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’. 

§ 150.619 [Amended] 

■ 109. In § 150.619(b), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’. 

§ 150.623 [Amended] 

■ 110. Amend § 150.623(c) introductory 

text by adding the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to’’ after the word ‘‘including’’. 

§ 150.715 [Amended] 

■ 111. In § 150.715(a), after the word 

‘‘must’’, add the words ‘‘comply with 

the requirements of 33 CFR 66.01–11 

and’’. 

§ 150.720 [Amended] 

■ 112. Amend § 150.720 by adding the 

words ‘‘and comply with the 

requirements of 33 CFR 67.10’’ after the 

text ‘‘5 miles’’. 

§ 150.812 [Amended] 

■ 113. Amend § 150.812 by removing 

the word ‘‘and’’ and adding, in its place, 

the symbol ‘‘,’’ after the word ‘‘life’’; and 

adding the words ‘‘, and the 

environment’’ after the word 

‘‘property’’. 

§ 150.815 [Amended] 

■ 114. Amend § 150.815(a)(4) by adding 

the words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’ after 

the word ‘‘including’’. 

■ 115. Revise § 150.830 to read as 

follows: 

§ 150.830 Reporting a pollution incident. 

(a) Oil pollution incidents involving a 

deepwater port are reported according 

to part 153, subpart B, of this chapter. 

(b) In each notification made under 

paragraph (a) of this section, the person 

in charge of the deepwater port involved 

in the incident must provide his or her 

name and telephone number, or radio 

call sign, and, to the extent known, 

the— 

(1) Location, date, and time of the 

incident; 

(2) Quantity of oil involved; 

(3) Cause of the incident; 

(4) Name or other identification of the 

vessel or offshore facility involved; 

(5) Size and color of any slick or 

sheen and the direction of its 

movement; 

(6) Observed on-scene weather 

conditions, including wind speed and 

direction, height and direction of seas, 

and any tidal or current influence 

present; 

(7) Actions taken or contemplated to 

secure the source or contain and remove 

or otherwise control the discharged oil; 

(8) Extent of any injuries or other 

damages incurred as a result of the 

incident; 

(9) Observed damage to living natural 

resources; and 

(10) Any other information deemed 

relevant by the reporting party or 

requested by the person receiving the 

notification. 

(c) The person giving notification of 

an incident must not delay notification 

to gather all required information and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

must provide any information not 

immediately available when it becomes 

known. 

§ 150.905 [Amended] 

■ 116. Amend § 150.905(d) by adding 

the words ‘‘, but not limited to,’’ after 

the word ‘‘including’’. 

§ 150.915 [Amended] 

■ 117. Amend § 150.915 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), after the word 

‘‘life’’, remove the word ‘‘and’’ and add, 

in its place, the symbol ‘‘,’’, and after the 

word ‘‘property’’, add the words ‘‘, or 

the environment’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(9), after the word 

‘‘including’’, add the words ‘‘, but not 

limited to,’’. 

Dated: March 17, 2015. 

Paul F. Zukunft, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06611 Filed 4–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2