5660 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381 

Electric power plants, Electric 

utilities, Natural gas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued: January 24, 2022. 

Anton C. Porter, 

Executive Director, Office of the Executive 

Director. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission amends part 381, chapter I, 

title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

set forth below. 

PART 381—FEES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 381 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w; 16 U.S.C. 

791–828c, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 

U.S.C. 7101–7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. 

U.S.C. 1–85. 

§ 381.302 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 381.302, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$ 31,160’’ and 

adding ‘‘$ 33,690’’ in its place. 

§ 381.303 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 381.303, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$ 45,480’’ and 

adding ‘‘$ 49,170’’ in its place. 

§ 381.304 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 381.304, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$ 23,850’’ and 

adding ‘‘$ 25,780’’ in its place. 

§ 381.305 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 381.305, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$ 8,940’’ and 

adding ‘‘$ 9,660’’ in its place. 

§ 381.403 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section § 381.403 is amended by 

removing ‘‘$ 15,510’’ and adding ‘‘$ 

16,770’’ in its place. 

§ 381.505 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 381.505, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$ 26,790’’ and 

adding ‘‘$ 28,970’’ in its place and by 

removing ‘‘$ 30,330’’ and adding ‘‘$ 

32,790’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02022 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. FDA–2019–N–3325] 

RIN 0910–AH31 

Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses 

of Foods; Correction 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

correcting a final rule that appeared in 

the Federal Register on December 3, 

2021. The document amended our 

regulations to establish a program for 

the testing of food in certain 

circumstances by accredited 

laboratories, as required under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

The final rule published with some 

editorial and inadvertent errors. This 

document corrects those errors. 

DATES: Effective February 1, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacie Hammack, Food and Feed 

Laboratory Operations, Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug 

Administration, 60 8th Street NE, 

Atlanta, GA 30309, 301–796–5817, 

Stacie.Hammack@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of Friday, December 3, 

2021, in FR Doc. 2021–25716, appearing 

on page 68728, the following corrections 

are made: 

PART 1—GENERAL ENFORCEMENT 

REGULATIONS 

Subpart R [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 68817, in the second 

column, in part 1, subpart R, the table 

of contents entry for § 1.1124 is 

corrected to read ‘‘What are the records 

requirements for a recognized 

accreditation body?’’. 

■ 2. On page 68823, in the first column, 

in part 1, subpart R, the undesignated 

heading between §§ 1.1125 and 1.1130 

is corrected to read ‘‘FDA Oversight of 

Recognized Accreditation Bodies’’. 

§ 1.1131 [Corrected] 

■ 3. On page 68823, in the second 

column, § 1.1131(a)(2) is corrected by 

removing ‘‘ISO/IEC 17011:2017 section 

9.5’’ and adding ‘‘ISO/IEC 

17011:2017(E) section 9.5’’ in its place. 

Dated: January 25, 2022. 

Lauren K. Roth, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02046 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 127 

[Docket No. USCG–2019–0444] 

RIN 1625–AC52 

Operational Risk Assessments for 

Waterfront Facilities Handling 

Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and 

Updates to Industry Standards 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard issues this 

final rule amending its regulations 

concerning waterfront facilities 

handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The 

final rule makes the following three 

changes. First, the final rule revises the 

Coast Guard’s existing regulations to 

allow waterfront facilities handling LNG 

as fuel to conduct an operational risk 

assessment instead of a waterway 

suitability assessment (WSA) without 

first obtaining Captain of the Port 

(COTP) approval. Second, the final rule 

revises existing regulations to update 

incorporated technical standards to 

reflect the most recent published 

editions. These updated industry 

standards only apply to waterfront 

facilities handling LNG and LHG that 

are constructed, expanded, or modified 

under a contract awarded after the 

implementation date of the final rule. 

Third, for waterfront facilities handling 

LNG that must comply with the WSA 

requirements, the final rule requires 

these facilities to provide information to 

the Coast Guard regarding the nation of 

registry for vessels transporting natural 

gas that are reasonably anticipated to be 

servicing the facilities, and the 

nationality or citizenship of officers and 

crew serving on board those vessels. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

4, 2022. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the rule 

is approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register on March 4, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2019– 

0444 in the search box and click 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5661 

1For the purpose of simplification, in this final 

rule we refer to a waterfront facility handling LNG 

as an ‘‘LNG import/export facility’’ to distinguish it 

from an LNG fuel facility. This term is used for 

convenience and does not appear in the regulatory 

text. 

2This rule defines LNG fuel facility in § 127.005 

to mean a waterfront facility that handles LNG for 

the sole purpose of providing LNG from shorebased structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel, 

and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG 

from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as 

cargo. 

3 LNG fuel facility does not include the transfer 

of LNG to a vessel for delivery to other vessels for 

use as fuel. This type of transfer operation is a 

transfer of LNG in bulk to a vessel capable of 

carrying LNG in bulk as cargo. 

4See the report by the Congressional Research 

Service, titled ‘‘LNG as a Maritime Fuel: Prospects 

and Policy’’ (dated February 5, 2019) at https://

fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45488.pdf. 

5This determination was made by direct 

communication with members of the LNG 

community through the Coast Guard’s participation 

on the technical committee for the National Fire 

Protection Association 59A titled, ‘‘Standard for the 

Production, Storage, and Handling of LNG,’’ which 

has approximately 50 members representing various 

owners, operators, and designers of waterfront 

facilities handling LNG and related LNG equipment 

suppliers, and through direct contact with owners 

and operators intending to build or modify 

waterfront facilities handling LNG. 

6Public Law 109–241, codified at 33 U.S.C. 

1504(j)(2). 

7 85 FR 62651. 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document call or 

email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager, 

Coast Guard, Vessel and Facility 

Operating Standards Division, 

Commandant (CG–OES–2); telephone 

202–372–1413, email Ken.A.Smith@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Executive Summary 

III. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory 

History 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

V. Discussion of the Rule 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards and Incorporation 

by Reference 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

API American Petroleum Institute 

ASME The American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ASTM ASTM International 

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CG–OES Coast Guard Office of Operating 

and Environmental Standards 

COI Collection of information 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DNV Det Norske Veritas 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

FR Federal Register 

GSA General Services Administration 

HAZID Hazard Identification 

IA Interagency Agreement 

IBR Incorporated by reference 

IEC International Electrotechnical 

Commission 

ISO International Organization for 

Standardization 

LHG Liquefied hazardous gas 

LNG Liquefied natural gas 

LOI Letter of Intent 

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and 

Law Enforcement 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OFR Office of the Federal Register 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORA Operational risk assessment 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SME Subject Matter Expert 

SNPRM Supplementary notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WSA Waterway suitability assessment 

II. Executive Summary 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

amend the regulations in Title 33 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

127 concerning waterfront facilities 

handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) 1

and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The 

final rule makes three changes: (1) 

Changes the risk assessment 

requirements for facilities that only 

handle LNG as fuel and do not transfer 

LNG as cargo to or from a vessel; (2) 

updates the technical standards already 

incorporated by reference in part 127; 

and (3) adds a requirement that LNG 

import/export facilities provide certain 

information to satisfy a statutory 

requirement. We discuss each change 

below. 

First, the final rule adds new 

§ 127.008 to allow waterfront facilities 

handling LNG as fuel (LNG fuel 

facilities 2 3) to conduct an operational 

risk assessment (ORA) instead of a 

waterway suitability assessment (WSA), 

without first obtaining Captain of the 

Port (COTP) approval. An ORA focuses 

on the safety and security associated 

with shore-based operations within the 

marine transfer area, whereas a WSA 

focuses on the risks and vulnerabilities 

of the waterway associated with an LNG 

import/export facility. LNG fuel 

facilities, as defined, do not transfer 

LNG as cargo to or from a vessel and so 

an assessment of the waterway is 

unnecessary. The final rule reduces the 

regulatory burden on LNG fuel facilities 

by reducing the scope of the analysis 

and the amount of information facility 

owners would have to submit to the 

Coast Guard. Reducing the regulatory 

burden could increase the maritime 

industry’s level of interest in converting 

or constructing vessels to use LNG as a 

marine fuel to comply with stricter 

emissions standards and realize 

economic advantages.4

Second, the final rule updates the 

technical standards already 

incorporated by reference in part 127 to 

reflect the most recent published 

editions of these standards. We have 

determined that modified, expanded, 

and new LNG fuel facilities, LNG 

import/export facilities, and waterfront 

facilities handling LHG are built to the 

most recent industry standards available 

at the time of modification, expansion, 

or construction, and not the outdated 

standards currently codified in 33 CFR 

part 127.5

Third, for LNG import/export 

facilities that must comply with the 

WSA requirements in § 127.007, the 

final rule requires these facilities to 

provide information to the Coast Guard 

at the time the WSA is submitted. The 

required information is the nation of 

registry for vessels transporting natural 

gas that are reasonably anticipated to be 

servicing the facilities, and the 

nationality or citizenship of officers and 

crew serving on board those vessels. We 

are making this change to assist us in 

meeting our obligation under § 304(c)(2) 

of the Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2006.6 This 

statute requires the Coast Guard, when 

operating as a contributing agency in the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) shoreside licensing process for 

an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, 

to provide this information to FERC. 

III. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory 

History 

On October 5, 2020, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register (FR) titled, ‘‘Operational Risk 

Assessments for Waterfront Facilities 

Handling Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, 

and Updates to Industry Standards.’’ 7

The NPRM included a 60-day comment 

period. No public meetings were 

requested, and none were held. During 

the comment period for the NPRM, the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5662 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

8 ‘‘Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance 

of Building Construction and Materials,’’ https://

www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-andstandards/list-of-codes-and-standards/ 

detail?code=251. (Last visited Oct. 26, 2021). 

9The IA agreement referenced by the commenter 

can be found at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/ 

files/2020-07/2004-interagency.pdf. This website 

was accessed on October 26, 2021. 

Coast Guard received five comment 

submissions. 

Chapter 700 of title 46 United States 

Code (U.S.C.), Ports and Waterways 

Safety, authorizes the Secretary of the 

department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating to take certain actions to 

advance port, harbor, and coastal 

facility safety and security. Specifically, 

Sections 70011 and 70034 authorize the 

Secretary to promulgate regulations for 

the handling, loading, unloading, 

storage, stowage, and movement of 

hazardous materials on a structure on or 

along U.S. navigable waters as necessary 

to protect the vessel, structure, water, or 

shore area. The Secretary has delegated 

this authority to the Commandant of the 

Coast Guard in DHS Delegation 00170.1, 

Revision No. 01.2, paragraph (II)(70). 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

reduce unnecessary requirements for 

LNG fuel facilities; update technical 

standards that apply to all facilities 

covered by part 127; and implement a 

statutory requirement that LNG import/ 

export facilities provide certain 

information. 

IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

The Coast Guard received five 

comment submissions during the 60-day 

comment period that ended on 

December 5, 2020. Four comment 

submissions were received from 

members of the public and one joint 

submission was submitted on behalf of 

two industry organizations. One 

commenter pointed out that by the time 

the proposed rule became final, the 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) would have adopted the 2020 

edition of the NFPA 70 standard. In the 

NPRM, which was published on 

October 5, 2020, we proposed to 

incorporate by reference the 2017 

edition of NFPA 70. After reviewing this 

comment, we discovered that the 2020 

edition of NFPA 70 became effective on 

August 25, 2019. The 2020 edition 

features changes related to emergency 

disconnects, ground-fault circuit 

interrupter protection, surge protection, 

and other topics related to electrical 

safety. However, the provisions of the 

2020 edition that would apply to 

regulated facilities through 

§§ 127.107(a) and (c), 127.201(c)(1), and 

127.1107, remain unchanged from the 

2017 edition. In this final rule, we 

incorporate by reference the 2020 

edition of NFPA 70. Incorporating the 

most current available edition of NFPA 

70 will make it easier for regulated 

entities to obtain the incorporated 

standard. Because this change does not 

alter the regulatory requirements we 

proposed for public comment, no 

additional notice or opportunity for 

public comment is necessary. 

The same commenter informed us 

that the ASTM International (ASTM) 

standard ASTM E119–20, Standard Test 

Methods for Fire Tests of Building 

Construction and Materials, approved 

May 1, 2020 has superseded NFPA 251. 

This standard provides the fire-testresponse criteria and procedures for 

structural materials used in building 

construction. The application of the test 

procedures contained in this standard 

are used to evaluate the duration for 

which building construction materials 

and assemblies can either contain a fire, 

retain structural integrity, or both. In 

response to this comment, we will 

revise the regulatory text in this final 

rule in § 127.005 for the definition of the 

term ‘‘fire endurance rating’’ by deleting 

the reference to NFPA 251 and replacing 

it with the reference to ASTM E119–20. 

This section refers to a standard time 

temperature curve, which is the same in 

both NFPA 251 and ASTM E119–20. 

The NFPA provides notice on their 

website that it withdrew NFPA 251 in 

the fall of 2010 8 and the material 

contained in NFPA 251 is now found in 

ASTM E119–20 and UL 263. Because 

making this change does not alter the 

regulatory requirements we proposed 

for public comment, no additional 

notice or opportunity for public 

comment is necessary. 

Another commenter recommended 

that the best course of action for the 

Coast Guard would be for owners and 

operators continue to meet with the 

COTP before submitting an ORA to the 

Coast Guard. The commenter said this 

would allow safety precautions to be 

taken into consideration when 

establishing new LNG fuel facilities, 

while also reducing the amount of work 

LNG facility owners and operators 

would have to do to get the LNG fuel 

facility approved. The Coast Guard 

expects owners and operators to 

continue meeting with the COTP, but 

has determined that the preliminary 

requirement for LNG fuel facilities to 

obtain the COTP’s approval prior to 

beginning the ORA should be 

eliminated. Interactions will take place 

throughout the development of the 

ORA, because the Coast Guard is a key 

port stakeholder that must be consulted 

during the risk assessment process. New 

§ 127.008(d)(1) identifies the standards 

to be followed for conducting an ORA 

and each of the standards contain 

provisions for either engaging with local 

stakeholders or the authorities having 

jurisdiction over the proposed LNG fuel 

facilities. Accordingly, the COTP will 

continue to work closely with owners 

and operators to assess the risks 

associated with their operation and 

determine whether the mitigation 

measures proposed are suitable. This 

regulatory change only eliminates the 

preliminary step, for certain facilities, of 

obtaining the COTP’s approval to begin 

the ORA. 

One commenter made reference to the 

2004 Interagency Agreement (IA) titled, 

‘‘For the Safety and Security Review of 

Waterfront Import/Export Liquefied 

Natural Gas Facilities’’ (issued on 

February 10, 2004), established between 

the Coast Guard, FERC, and the Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA).9 The 

commenter stated that by allowing 

owners or operators to conduct an ORA, 

instead of a WSA, without first 

obtaining COTP approval appears to 

render the terms of the IA moot. The IA 

remains in effect and applies only to 

LNG import or export facilities, which 

must conduct a WSA, under § 127.007. 

The LNG fuel facilities this regulatory 

action addresses in § 127.008 will not be 

importing or exporting LNG, but 

providing LNG as fuel from shore-based 

structures to vessels. Accordingly, the 

IA does not apply to the LNG fuel 

facilities affected by this aspect of the 

final rule. Supplies of LNG will be 

delivered to an LNG fuel facility from 

shore-based sources (for example, tank 

trucks, rail cars, or pipelines), making 

waterway assessment unnecessary, 

because no waterborne sources are used 

to supply LNG to the facility. LNG fuel 

facilities, through the ORA process, will 

have to assess the overall safety and 

security of the facilities just like LNG 

import or export facilities do when 

conducting a WSA. 

The Coast Guard received one joint 

comment submission on behalf of two 

well-known oil and gas industry 

organizations, the Center for Liquefied 

Natural Gas and the American 

Petroleum Institute. These organizations 

voiced strong support for the proposed 

rule, noting that the LNG industry has 

a strong safety record and long history 

of working closely with regulators and 

first responders to maximize safety and 

security of both large and small LNG 

facilities. The commenters said that the 

use of an ORA instead of a WSA will 

benefit LNG fuel facilities and integrate 

the benefits of risk-based principles over 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5663 

10https://www.nist.gov/system/files/revised_

circular_a-119_as_of_01-22-2016.pdf. 

11See 85 FR 62651, at 62654. 

12Public Law 109–241, codified at 33 U.S.C. 

1504(j)(2). 

the more prescriptive regulations and 

policies associated with conducting a 

WSA. The commenters said, and the 

Coast Guard agrees, ‘‘. . . that allowing 

an ORA to be conducted instead of a 

WSA would benefit waterfront facilities 

handling LNG as fuel. Allowing an ORA 

would integrate the benefits of riskbased principles over the more 

prescriptive regulations of a WSA. 

Utilizing a risk-based approach (like the 

ORA) effectively manages safety by 

allowing examination and devotion of 

resources on the areas of the system that 

pose the greatest risk to process safety, 

mechanical integrity, and product 

quality without compromising 

equipment care and personnel wellbeing.’’ The Coast Guard also believes 

the ORA focuses attention on critical 

areas and establishes safety standards 

that all future LNG fuel facility owners 

can follow, which helps ensure a 

consistent approach for evaluating the 

safety and security concerns associated 

with each individual project. In this 

manner, maritime safety and security 

may be more effectively managed 

without unnecessary costs being 

imposed on the industry. 

One concern raised by these 

commenters involved the proposed 

updates to the existing standards 

currently incorporated by reference in 

33 CFR part 127, noting that updating to 

newer editions could cause conflict 

with standards that are incorporated by 

reference by other government and state 

agencies that may share overlapping 

jurisdiction. In this regard, the 

commenters indicated that it is vital that 

all stakeholders, including the operators 

of LNG fuel facilities and personnel of 

agencies having jurisdiction over the 

facilities, have a clear understanding of 

which version of a standard is to be 

used and how that standard will be 

interpreted and enforced. They agree 

that updating existing regulations to 

incorporate technical standards to 

reflect the most recent published 

editions is good practice and asked that 

the Coast Guard attempt to ensure that 

standards are not in conflict with other 

regulatory bodies having overlapping 

jurisdiction. In this instance, the 

commenters noted that the 2001 and 

2006 editions of NFPA 59A that are 

incorporated by reference in PHMSA’s 

regulations (see 49 CFR 193.2013) 

reference different editions of ASME 

B31.3 and NFPA 70 than the editions 

we intend to incorporate. However, the 

Coast Guard does not believe this causes 

a conflict, because the regulations of 

both the Coast Guard and PHMSA 

clearly define each agency’s 

jurisdictional boundaries. The Coast 

Guard has jurisdictional authority over 

the marine transfer areas for LNG and 

LHG, which are defined in § 127.005. 

PHMSA’s jurisdictional authority, as 

defined in 49 CFR 193.2001, does not 

include marine cargo transfer areas, 

with the exception of siting 

requirements for the facility. Through 

its regulations, the Coast Guard makes it 

clear to the regulated industry that 

ASME B31.3–2020, referenced in 

§ 127.1101, must be used for the 

construction of piping systems located 

in the marine transfer areas for 

waterfront facilities handling LHG. 

Also, through its regulations, the Coast 

Guard makes it clear to the regulated 

industry that NFPA 70 2020, referenced 

in §§ 127.107, 127.201, and 127.1107, 

must be used for the construction of 

electrical systems and warning alarms 

located in the marine transfer areas for 

LNG and LHG. 

The Coast Guard agrees with many of 

the points raised by these commenters 

and understands that there may be 

certain circumstances when the editions 

of standards we incorporate by reference 

are different than the editions of the 

standards incorporated by other state or 

Federal agencies. The Coast Guard has 

chosen to incorporate the latest editions 

of the standards referenced in § 127.003 

in order to meet the intent of the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–119 (Federal Participation in 

the Development and Use of Voluntary 

Consensus Standards and in Conformity 

Assessment Activities),10 which 

requires that agencies incorporate the 

most recent standards to enhance safety 

with minimum cost. 

The Coast Guard coordinated with 

FERC and PHMSA on this rulemaking. 

Nonetheless, the Coast Guard intends to 

work with FERC and PHMSA to update 

the existing IA shared between the 

agencies, which may provide an 

opportunity to address differences in 

the editions of the standards each 

agency has incorporated by reference in 

its regulations. 

The Coast Guard also received a 

question submitted directly to the 

project manager, which the Coast Guard 

has posted in the docket folder for 

transparency. The question was related 

to information presented in the NPRM, 

and asked which three facility owners 

the Coast Guard met with and whether 

there are notes or summaries from those 

meetings. In response, we notified the 

requestor that the three facilities were 

Tote Maritime, Harvey Gulf Marine 

International, and Eagle LNG. The 

substance of the meetings is 

summarized in the NPRM,11 and no 

additional notes are available. 

V. Discussion of the Rule 

This final rule amends 33 CFR part 

127. With this final rule, we are 

finalizing the following three changes: 

First, the Coast Guard is revising its 

existing regulations to allow certain 

LNG fuel facilities to conduct an ORA 

instead of a WSA without first obtaining 

COTP approval to do so. By allowing 

LNG fuel facilities that only handle LNG 

as fuel and do not transfer LNG as cargo 

to or from a vessel to use an ORA in lieu 

of a WSA, without submitting an 

alternative request and meeting with the 

COTP, this final rule reduces the 

regulatory burden on LNG fuel facilities. 

This is accomplished by reducing the 

scope of the analysis and the amount of 

information facility owners will have to 

submit to the Coast Guard, eliminating 

an unnecessary administrative burden 

on these entities. 

Second, the Coast Guard is updating 

the technical standards already 

incorporated by reference in part 127 to 

reflect the most recent published 

editions of these standards. These 

technical standards apply to LNG fuel 

facilities, LNG import/export facilities, 

and waterfront facilities handling LHG. 

Third, for LNG import/export 

facilities that must comply with the 

WSA requirements in § 127.007, the 

Coast Guard is requiring these facilities 

to provide information at the time the 

WSA is submitted regarding the nation 

of registry for vessels transporting LNG 

that are reasonably anticipated to be 

servicing the facilities, and the 

nationality or citizenship of officers and 

crew serving on board those vessels. 

The Coast Guard is making this change 

to assist in meeting obligations under 

section 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.12

This statute requires the Coast Guard, 

when operating as a contributing agency 

in the FERC shoreside licensing process 

for an onshore or near-shore LNG 

terminal, to provide this information to 

FERC. 

The following paragraphs explain 

additional, minor ways the final rule 

differs from the proposal on which we 

received public comments. None of 

these differences alter how the rule 

affects regulated entities, and so no 

additional notice or opportunity to 

comment on them is necessary. 

The Coast Guard will amend the 

proposed authority citation for 33 CFR 

part 127 from ‘‘Pub. L. 109–241, sec. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5664 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

304(c)(2)’’ to ‘‘33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2),’’ 

because, on January 1, 2021, that section 

of the statute was codified at 33 U.S.C. 

1504(j)(2). The authority citation also 

reflects a recent revision to the 

delegation of authorities from the 

Secretary to the Coast Guard. 

In the NPRM, the Coast Guard 

proposed to update the existing ASTM 

F1121–87, Standard Specification for 

International Shore Connections for 

Marine Fire Applications, by replacing 

the Reapproved 2010 edition with the 

Reapproved 2015 edition. Since 

publication of the NPRM, the Coast 

Guard learned that ASTM published 

ASTM F1121–87 (Reapproved in 2019) 

in January 2020 without change. The 

substantive content in the ASTM 

F1121–87 (Reapproved 2019) remains 

the same as the Reapproved 2010 and 

Reapproved 2015 editions. ASTM 

F1121–87 (Reapproved 2019) is the 

publication most readily available to the 

public. Accordingly, this final rule 

references the ASTM F1121–87 

(Reapproved 2019) in §§ 127.003(c)(2), 

127.611, and 127.1511. 

Additionally, in the NPRM, the Coast 

Guard proposed to update the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) ASME B31.3–1993 standard by 

replacing it with the ASME B31.3–2018. 

Since publication of the NPRM, the 

Coast Guard learned that ASME issued 

ASME B31.3–2020 on June 18, 2021. As 

a result, the Coast Guard is 

incorporating the latest edition of this 

standard in the final rule to ensure that 

piping systems used on waterfront 

facilities handling LHG are designed 

and constructed in accordance with 

ASME B31.3–2020. This standard is a 

technical engineering standard used by 

design engineers to ensure that piping 

systems are safe for use with hazardous 

liquids under pressure. Changes 

between the 2018 and 2020 editions 

include both minor editorial corrections 

as well as technical changes associated 

with stress calculations and material 

selections. The changes between 

editions have no cost impact on owners 

and operators of waterfront facilities 

handling LHG, but rather affect the 

methods and considerations used by 

design engineers to evaluate materials 

and calculate stress levels in piping 

systems. This final rule references 

ASME B31.3–2020 in §§ 127.003(b)(2) 

and 127.1101(a). 

In the NPRM, the Coast Guard 

proposed to update the existing ASME 

B16.5 standard by replacing the 1992 

edition with the 2017 edition. Since 

publication of the NPRM, the Coast 

Guard learned that ASME issued ASME 

B16.5–2020 on January 29, 2021. The 

regulations in § 127.1102(a)(4)(ii) 

require that each hose within the marine 

transfer area for LHG used for the 

transfer of LHG or its vapors to or from 

a vessel must meet the flange 

requirements contained in ASME B16.5. 

This standard is a technical standard 

used by designers and manufacturers 

and has no impact on facility owners 

and operators. Each new edition of this 

standard has a table in the front of the 

document that identifies the changes 

made to the edition. After evaluating the 

extent of the changes to ASME B16.5– 

2020, the Coast Guard determined the 

changes deal with such things as stress 

calculations, new materials, and other 

technical items, which have no direct 

cost to owners and operators of LNG 

fuel facilities. Incorporating the latest 

edition available will ensure that 

facilities constructed after the final rule 

is published will be using the most 

recent industry standards when they are 

designing and constructing their transfer 

hose systems. Accordingly, in this final 

rule, reference to ASME B16.5–2020 is 

made in §§ 127.003(b)(1) and 

127.1102(a)(4)(ii). 

In the NPRM, the Coast Guard 

proposed new paragraph (g) of § 127.007 

to require an owner or operator 

intending to build a new LNG facility to 

submit the LOI no later than the date 

that the owner or operator files a prefiling request with FERC under 18 CFR 

153 or 157, and include the nation of 

registry for, and the nationality or 

citizenship of officers and crew serving 

on board, vessels transporting natural 

gas that are reasonably anticipated to be 

servicing the LNG facility. During 

review of the regulatory text, we 

realized that it is best to include this 

text in existing paragraph (a), which 

contains the requirements for 

submitting an LOI to the COTP no later 

than the date that the owner or operator 

files a pre-filing request with FERC 

under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157. 

Therefore, we are moving the text from 

proposed new paragraph (g) to existing 

paragraph (a)(1). 

Because we are not finalizing the 

change we proposed in new paragraph 

(g), existing paragraphs (g) and (h) do 

not need to be redesignated as 

paragraphs (h) and (i). Therefore, new 

paragraph (j) is being redesignated as 

new paragraph (i). 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

Section 127.003 of the final rule 

incorporates by reference 14 standards. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 

51, a publication is eligible for 

incorporation by reference if it meets 

Office of the Federal Register policies 

and is reasonably available to and 

usable by the class of persons affected. 

Regulations in part 51 require that 

agencies discuss, in the final rule, ways 

that the materials the agency 

incorporates by reference are reasonably 

available, to interested parties and how 

interested parties can obtain the 

materials. In addition, the preamble to 

the final rule must summarize the 

material. 

In accordance with the OFR’s 

requirements, section VII.L. of this final 

rule summarizes the major provisions of 

the standards that the Coast Guard 

incorporates by reference into § 127.003. 

Interested parties can purchase copies of 

these standards directly from the 

sources listed in § 127.003, or make 

arrangements to inspect them at a Coast 

Guard facility. 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

The Coast Guard performed the 

regulatory analysis of this final rule after 

considering relevant existing statutes 

and Executive orders. 

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. 

OMB has not designated this final 

rule a significant regulatory action 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, OMB has not 

reviewed it. A regulatory analysis 

follows. 

The following paragraphs explain the 

impact of the final rule and the 

alternatives we considered. The Coast 

Guard received five comment 

submissions during the 60-day comment 

period that ended on December 5, 2020. 

We received one comment on the third 

alternative that we will address in the 

alternative section. We received no 

public comments on the estimated 

benefits and costs; hence, the 

methodology employed in the 

regulatory analysis remains unchanged. 

However, we have updated the wage 

rates and other prices to capture 

changes in these values since the 

publication of the NPRM. In particular, 

while the NPRM used 2018 values, this 

final rule uses 2020 wage rates and 

prices. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5665 

13 In this regulatory analyses, ‘‘LNG fuel facility’’ 

refers to a waterfront facility that handles LNG for 

the sole purpose of providing LNG from shorebased structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel, 

and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG 

from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as 

cargo. ‘‘LNG import/export facility’’ refers to any 

structure on, in, or under the navigable waters of 

the United States, or any structure on land or any 

area on shore immediately adjacent to such waters, 

used or capable of being used to transfer liquefied 

natural gas, in bulk, to or from a vessel. ‘‘LHG 

facility’’ refers to any structure on, in, or under the 

navigable waters of the United States, or any 

structure on land or any area on shore immediately 

adjacent to such waters, used or capable of being 

used to transfer liquefied hazardous gas, in bulk, to 

or from a vessel. These terms are used for 

convenience in this preamble and do not appear in 

the regulatory text. 

14The first LNG fuel facility in the United States 

became operational in 2016. The second and third 

became operational in 2018 and 2019, respectively. 

The Coast Guard’s authority to 

address safety and security issues raised 

by the increased use of LNG by 

maritime vessels is the basis for this 

final rule. In this final rule, the Coast 

Guard is making it easier to conduct an 

ORA instead of a WSA for certain LNG 

facilities due to the size and scope of 

these facilities’ operations. An ORA 

focuses on the safety and security 

associated with shore-based operations 

within the marine transfer area, whereas 

a WSA focuses on the risks and 

vulnerabilities of the waterway 

associated with an LNG import/export 

facility. ORAs and WSAs follow similar 

procedures for assessing risk, and the 

Coast Guard determined that it could 

narrow the scope of the assessment for 

an LNG fuel facility to focus on 

operations solely taking place at the 

facility if LNG tank vessels do not 

deliver to the facility using the 

associated waterway. 

We estimated the benefits and costs of 

this final rule against the no-action 

baseline. We determined that removing 

the requirements that LNG fuel facilities 

submit an alternative request and meet 

with the COTP to conduct an ORA in 

lieu of a WSA has quantifiable benefits 

in the form of cost savings. We also 

determined that updating standards 

incorporated by reference in this final 

rule has unquantified benefits. Table 1 

of this analysis provides a summary of 

the affected population, cost savings, 

unquantified benefits, and no-cost 

changes of this final rule. We estimate 

an annualized cost savings to industry 

of $16,586 (with a 7-percent discount 

rate), and an annualized cost savings to 

the government of $700 (with a 7- 

percent discount rate), for a total net 

annualized cost savings of $17,287 in 

2020 dollars, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. This is compared to the proposed 

rule’s estimated total net annualized 

cost savings of $16,843 in 2018 dollars, 

using a 7-percent discount rate. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE FINAL RULE

Category Summary 

Applicability 13 .................................. New LNG import/export facilities. New LNG fuel facilities. New LHG Facilities. 

Affected Population ......................... 20 new LNG import/export facilities over the 10-year analysis period. 10 new LNG fuel facilities over the 

10-year analysis period. 30 new LHG facilities over the 10-year analysis period. 

Cost Savings to Industry (7-percent 

discount rate).

10-year: ($116,496) * 

Annualized: ($16,586) * 

Cost Savings to Government (7- 

percent discount rate).

10-year: ($4,918) * 

Annualized: ($700) * 

No cost requirements ...................... Update incorporated technical standards to reflect the most recent published editions. Require the Letter of 

Intent (LOI) of a new LNG import/export facility to include information on the nation of registry for, and 

the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting natural gas that 

are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility. 

Unquantified Benefit ........................ Updating standards incorporate by reference improves clarity, and alleviates discrepancies and unnecessary duplications between regulatory standards and industry best practices. 

* Costs are in 2020 dollars. 

Affected Population 

As of 2020, there are 12 existing LNG 

import/export facilities, 3 existing LNG 

fuel facilities, and 106 existing LHG 

facilities that are regulated under 33 

CFR part 127. No new facilities have 

been constructed since the publication 

of the proposed rule. Based on the Coast 

Guard’s Marine Information for Safety 

and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database 

regarding activation dates of the 3 

existing LNG fuel facilities and the 

projected activation dates of 1 LNG fuel 

facility under construction, we estimate 

that 10 new LNG fuel facilities will be 

built during the 10-year analysis period, 

or 1 annually.14 Using MISLE data on 

existing LNG import/export facilities, 

we estimate that 20 new LNG import/ 

export facilities will be built during the 

10-year analysis period, or 2 annually. 

Using MISLE data, we estimate that 30 

new LHG facilities will be built during 

the 10-year analysis period, or 3 

annually. However, for the purposes of 

this analysis, we assume that, on 

average, each year 3 new LHG facilities 

will replace 3 retiring LHG facilities for 

a static total population of 106 facilities. 

Table 2 presents the projected number 

of LNG import/export facilities, LNG 

fuel facilities, and LHG facilities over 

the 10-year analysis period. 

This rule finalizes the three 

substantive changes proposed in the 

NPRM to existing regulations that 

impact different segments of the affected 

population. First, the final rule modifies 

current regulations to allow LNG fuel 

facilities that do not receive LNG from 

vessels to conduct an ORA instead of 

the WSA without first obtaining COTP 

approval per existing § 127.007, which 

impacts one new LNG fuel facility 

annually. Second, the final rule updates 

the technical standards already 

incorporated by reference in part 127 to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5666 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

reflect the most recent published 

editions of these standards, which 

impacts one new LNG fuel facility, two 

new LNG import/export facilities, and 

three replacement LHG facilities 

annually. Third, the final rule requires 

that LNG import/export facilities must 

comply with the WSA requirements in 

§ 127.007 to provide information at the 

time the WSA is submitted regarding 

the nation of registry for vessels 

transporting LNG that are reasonably 

anticipated to be servicing the facilities 

and the nationality or citizenship of 

officers and crew serving on board those 

vessels, which impacts two new LNG 

import/export facilities annually. 

BILLING CODE 9100–04–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5667 

15We used 2020 wage data from the U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment 

Statistics for the natural gas distribution sector 

using the North American Industry Classification 

System with an industry code of 221200. Readers 

can view the wage rates at https://www.bls.gov/oes/ 

2020/may/naics4_221200.htm. Note that we used 

the occupational code of Information and Record 

Clerks, OC 43–4000, as a proxy for the labor 

category ‘‘clerk’’, and the occupational code of 

Architectural and Engineering Managers, OC 11– 

9041, as a proxy for the labor category ‘‘manager’’ 

as a manager with some engineering knowledge is 

expected to be involved in completing the 

alternative request. 

16To obtain the load factor, we divided the total 

cost for employers by the wages and salaries of 

private workers for the utility sector in December 

2020, or $67.62 divided by $41.64 equals 1.62. 

Readers can find this information in Table 4 of the 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

December 2020 News Release available at https:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

03182021.htm. 

Benefits 

Cost Savings to Industry 

The quantified benefits of this final 

rule are due to the cost savings 

associated with the new requirement 

allowing businesses that intend to build 

an LNG fuel facility, modify an existing 

LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an 

inactive LNG fuel facility to complete an 

LOI and ORA instead of an LOI and a 

WSA without submitting an alternative 

request and meeting with the COTP. 

Currently, an owner intending to 

build a new LNG fuel facility has the 

option of either (1) meeting with the 

COTP and submitting an alternative 

request to complete an ORA; or (2) 

completing a traditional WSA that 

focuses on the traffic, security, and 

navigational hazards of the affected 

waterway in addition to operational 

risk. With the final rule, an owner 

intending to build a new LNG fuel 

facility can conduct an ORA in lieu of 

a WSA without submitting an 

alternative request and having a 

preliminary meeting with the COTP, 

resulting in cost savings. The remainder 

of this regulatory analysis presents the 

cost savings associated with this change. 

As noted in the ‘‘Affected Population’’ 

section of this analysis, there are 

currently three active LNG fuel facilities 

and one LNG fuel facility under 

construction. Of these four facilities, 

three submitted alternative requests and 

received permission to conduct an ORA 

under existing alternative methods 

because the Coast Guard determined 

that an ORA was more appropriate for 

their intended LNG operations. The 

other LNG fuel facility chose to 

complete a WSA and thus did not 

submit an alternative request. Based on 

this background information and 

discussions with subject matter experts 

(SMEs) in the Coast Guard Office of 

Operating and Environmental Standards 

(CG–OES), we estimate that, going 

forward, 75 percent of the LNG fuel 

facilities will submit an alternative 

request and complete an ORA and the 

other 25 percent will complete a WSA 

(see table 3 below). 

According to the OMB-approved 

collection of information (COI) (Control 

Number 1625–0049), completing an 

alternative request requires 2 clerical 

hours and 8 managerial hours. The 

mean hourly wage rates in 2020 for 

clerks and managers from the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) were 

$29.50 and $77.48, respectively.15 To 

account for the cost of employee 

benefits, such as vacation time and 

health insurance, we multiplied the 

mean hourly wage rates by a load factor 

of 1.62, resulting in a loaded mean 

hourly wage rate of about $47.79 for a 

clerk ($29.50 × 1.62) and $125.52 for a 

manager ($77.48 × 1.62).16

Therefore, we estimate the labor cost 

of completing an alternative request to 

be about $1,100, which includes $95.58 

in clerical labor cost (2 clerical hours × 

$47.79 per hour) and $1,004.16 in 

managerial labor cost (8 managerial 

hours × $125.52 per hour). With this 

final rule, LNG fuel facilities will no 

longer submit an alternative request to 

complete an ORA; therefore, each new 

facility that requests an ORA will have 

a one-time benefit of $1,100. As shown 

in table 3, given that 75 percent of new 

facilities will submit an alternative 

request, we estimate the annualized cost 

savings to industry to be about $825, 

using a 7-percent discount rate. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5668 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

As part of requesting an alternative 

approval to conduct an ORA, the 

requesting party meets with the COTP to 

discuss the alternative. These meetings 

require representatives of the requesting 

firm to travel to meet with the COTP. 

The travel costs associated with these 

meetings mainly depend on the distance 

between the firm’s headquarters and the 

site selected for the new LNG fuel 

facility. Review of the headquarters 

locations and the site locations of 

existing and under construction LNG 

fuel facilities in our MISLE database 

suggests that 75 percent of the facilities 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5669 

17Of the four LNG fuel facilities (three existing 

and one projected to be operational in the future), 

three of the facilities are, on average, within an 80- 

mile round trip from their respective headquarters. 

One facility located in Jacksonville, FL is an 

approximately 1,700-mile round trip from its 

headquarters’ location in Houston, TX. Based on 

this information, we assume that 75 percent of 

participants will drive while the other 25 percent 

will fly. 

18We calculated an engineer’s mean hourly wage 

using 2020 wage data from BLS’ Occupational 

Employment Statistics for the natural gas 

distribution sector using the North American 

Industry Classification System with an industry 

code of 221200. Readers can use the link https:// 

www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_221200.htm. 

Note that the occupational code for engineers is OC 

17–2000. 

19 Discussion with consultants reveal that, on 

average, in 2017, completing a WSA costs $114,585 

and takes about 500 hours. Based on this 

information, we estimate the mean consultant wage 

rate to be about $229.17 ($114,585 divided by 500 

hours equals $229.17 per hour) in 2017. 

20To obtain the inflation factor, we divided the 

GDP deflator for 2020 (113.625) by the GDP deflator 

for 2017 (107.710), which equals 1.054915. 

21Readers can view the 2020 reimbursable rates 

for personal vehicles at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/ 

plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privatelyowned-vehicle-mileage-rates/pov-mileage-ratesarchived. 

22We obtained 56.25 percent by multiplying the 

proportion of facilities submitting alternative (75 

percent) by the proportion driving to the COTP (75 

percent) (i.e., 0.75 multiplied by 0.75 equals 

0.5625). 

are approximately an 80-mile round trip 

drive from the COTP; therefore, we 

assume the representatives of these 

facilities will drive to the meeting. 

Flight travel will be required for visits 

to the other 25 percent of facilities.17

Moreover, discussions with Coast Guard 

SMEs in CG–OES revealed that a 

meeting lasts for an average of 2 hours 

and involves two managerial employees, 

one technical employee (engineer) and 

one outside consultant hired by the 

firm. 

We estimate that it takes 

approximately 2 hours to complete the 

80-mile round trip drive. Accordingly, 

including driving time, we estimate the 

duration of the meeting to be about 4 

work hours. The BLS reported a mean 

hourly wage rate for an engineer to be 

$54.18 in 2020; using a load factor of 

1.62, we obtained a loaded mean hourly 

wage rate of about $87.77 ($54.18 × 

1.62).18 Discussions with industry 

consultants revealed that the mean 

hourly wage rate for a consultant 

completing WSAs and ORAs for LNG 

fuel facilities was about $229 in 2017.19

Using the inflation factor of 1.0549, we 

estimate the consultant mean hourly 

wage rate to be about $242 in 2020 

dollars.20

We estimate the total labor cost per 

meeting when industry representatives 

drive to meet with the COTP to be about 

$2,323 annually, which is the sum of 

$351.08 in engineer’s labor cost (4 hours 

× $87.77), $1,004.16 in manager’s labor 

cost (2 managers × 4 hours × $125.52), 

and $968 for the consultant’s labor cost 

(4 hours × $242). 

To calculate the cost of driving to the 

COTP’s facility, we use the 2020 

General Services Administration (GSA) 

reimbursable rate for personal vehicles, 

$0.575 per mile, which considers the 

cost of fuel, depreciation, maintenance, 

and insurance.21 Accordingly, the Coast 

Guard estimates that an 80-mile round 

trip drive to the COTP costs about $46 

(80 miles × $0.575 per mile) per new 

facility. 

With this final rule, industry 

representatives will no longer need to 

drive to meet with the COTP to submit 

and discuss the alternative, resulting in 

an annual benefit of $2,369 per meeting 

($46 driving cost + $2,323 in labor cost). 

As shown in table 4, given that about 

56.25 percent of the new LNG fuel 

facility representatives will drive to the 

COTP, we estimate the annualized cost 

savings to industry of not having to 

drive to the COTP to discuss an 

alternative request to be about $1,327 

using a 7-percent discount rate.22 We 

estimate the discounted cost savings to 

industry of not driving to meet with a 

COTP to be about $9,319 over a 10-year 

period of analysis, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5670 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

23This estimate is based on the travel time 

between one LNG fuel facility’s headquarters— 

which is in Houston—and its facility location— 

which is in Jacksonville, FL. 

24As the future location of new facilities and the 

corresponding headquarters of these facilities are 

unknown, we use national averages for flight costs, 

lodging expenses, and per diems. 

25U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(https://www.bts.gov/content/national-leveldomestic-average-fare-series) reports the average 

cost of a domestic U.S. flight on a quarterly basis. 

We estimate the mean cost of domestic flight to be 

$275 in 2020. 

As stated above, we assume that 25 

percent of the facilities submitting 

alternative requests will fly 

representatives to meet with the COTP. 

We estimate that, including travel time, 

the trip will take approximately 12 work 

hours.23 Accordingly, the labor cost per 

meeting will be about $6,970, which is 

the sum of $1,053 for an engineer’s labor 

cost (12 hours × $87.77 per hour), 

$3,012 for a manager’s labor cost (2 

managers × 12 hours × $125.52 per 

hour), and $2,904 for a consultant’s 

labor cost (12 hours × $242 per hour). 

To calculate the cost of flying to the 

COTP’s facility, we first computed the 

cost of a plane ticket, hotel, rental car, 

and per diem.24 We estimate the cost of 

each round trip flight (non-stop) to be 

about $275, for a total flight cost of 

$1,100 (4 flight tickets × $275 per round 

trip flight ticket).25 The Coast Guard 

assumes that each individual spends a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5671 

24As the future location of new facilities and the 

corresponding headquarters of these facilities are 

unknown, we use national averages for flight costs, 

lodging expenses, and per diems. 25U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(https://www.bts.gov/content/national-leveldomestic-average-fare-series) reports the average 

cost of a domestic U.S. flight on a quarterly basis. 

We estimate the mean cost of domestic flight to be 

$275 in 2020. 26We multiplied the 2020 standard GSA rate for 

lodging ($96)—which can be found at FY 2020 Per 

Diem Rates for Federal Travelers Released, GSA— 

by the national mean lodging tax rate of 14.10 

percent—which can be found at HVS, 2020 HVS 

Lodging Tax Report—USA—for a total cost of $110 

per night ($96 per night multiplied by 14.10 percent 

tax equals $110 per night) in 2020 dollars. 

27We used the $50 cost estimate of a round trip 

airport transfer from the ‘‘Validation of Merchant 

Mariners’ Vital Information and Issuance of Coast 

Guard Merchant Mariner’s Licenses and Certificates 

of Registry’’ interim rule (71 FR 2154, January 13, 

2006) as a proxy for the cost of a round trip airport 

transfer, and traveling to and from the meeting. We 

adjusted the $50 amount to 2020 dollars using an 

inflation factor of 1.2616, which is obtained by 

dividing 2020 GDP deflator (113.625) by 2006 GDP 

deflator (90.066) (i.e., 113.625 divided by 90.066 

equals 1.2616). So, we estimate the airport transfer 

cost to be about $63 ($50 multiplied by 1.616 equals 

$63) in 2020 dollars. 

night in a hotel at a cost of $110 per 

night,26 for a total cost of $440 (4 rooms 

× $110 per night). We assume that the 

four representatives will share a rental 

car estimated to cost $63 for transit to 

and from the airport and the meeting.27

We also assume that each individual 

needs about 2 days of meals and 

incidental allowance (first and last day 

of travel), which is about $41.25 per day 

per person for a total of $330 ($41.25 per 

day × 2 days × 4 persons).28

Accordingly, we estimate the total cost 

of flight travel to be about $1,933, which 

includes the cost of plane tickets 

($1,100), cost of overnight 

accommodations ($440), cost of a rental 

car ($63), and per diem expenses ($330). 

Hence, we estimate that this final rule 

will result in an annual cost savings of 

about $8,903 per meeting ($1,933 in 

transportation cost and $6,970 in labor 

cost), as industry representatives will no 

longer need to fly to meet with the 

COTP. Given that 18.75 percent of the 

new LNG fuel facilities (one facility a 

year) will choose to fly representatives 

to meet with the COTP, we estimate the 

annualized cost savings to industry of 

not flying will be about $1,669 ($8,903 

× 1 facility × 0.75 × 0.25) using a 7- 

percent discount rate, where 0.75 is the 

fraction of facilities submitting an 

alternative and 0.25 is the fraction flying 

to meet the COTP.29 Moreover, we 

estimate the discounted or the present 

value cost savings to industry of not 

flying to meet with the COTP to be 

$11,724 over a 10-year period of 

analysis, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. See table 5 for details. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5672 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–C 

Based on reviews of data in MISLE 

and discussions with Coast Guard 

SMEs, we determined that, of the four 

LNG fuel facilities (three existing and 

one under construction), three 

submitted an alternative request and 

completed an ORA and one completed 

a WSA. Accordingly, we estimate that 

under the existing regulatory 

requirements, 25 percent of LNG fuel 

facilities complete a full WSA instead of 

submitting an alternative request. With 

this final rule, new LNG fuel facilities 

no longer need to complete a WSA 

when an ORA is a more appropriate and 

cheaper alternative. Discussions with 

industry representatives revealed that 

consulting firms take approximately 289 

hours to complete an ORA and 500 

hours to complete a WSA. Accordingly, 

we estimate the average cost to complete 

a WSA to be $121,000 (500 consultant 

hours × $242 per hour) and the average 

cost to complete an ORA to be $69,938 

(289 consultant hours × $239 per hour); 

hence, completing an ORA instead of a 

WSA results in a cost savings of about 

$51,062. 

Table 6 presents the annualized cost 

savings to industry for completing an 

ORA in lieu of a WSA. Given that only 

25 percent of new facilities complete a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5673 

WSA, we estimate the total annualized 

cost savings to industry of completing 

an ORA in lieu of a WSA to be 

approximately $12,766 ($51,062 in cost 

savings × 1 facility × 0.25 of facilities 

that submit WSAs), using a 7-percent 

discount rate. We estimate the total 

discounted or present value cost savings 

of completing an ORA in place of a 

WSA to be about $89,660 over a 10-year 

period of analysis, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

TABLE 6—DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS TO INDUSTRY OF COMPLETING ORAS AS OPPOSED TO WSAS

[$2020] 

Year Total change 

in cost 

Total number 

of new LNG 

fuel facilities 

Total cost 

savings 

Cost savings 

discounted at 3% 

Cost savings 

discounted at 7% 

(a) (b) (c) (d) = (b) × (c) (j) = (i) ÷ (1.03)(a) (k) = (i) ÷ (1.07)(a)

1 .................................................................................. $51,062 0.25 $12,766 $12,394 $11,930 

2 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 12,033 11,150 

3 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 11,682 10,420 

4 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 11,342 9,739 

5 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 11,012 9,102 

6 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 10,691 8,506 

7 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 10,380 7,950 

8 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 10,077 7,430 

9 .................................................................................. 51,062 0.25 12,766 9,784 6,944 

10 ................................................................................ 51,062 0.25 12,766 9,499 6,489 

Total ..................................................................... ........................ ............................ 127,655 108,892 89,660 

Annualized .................................................... ........................ ............................ .............................. 12,766 12,766 

Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Table 7 contains the total cost savings 

to industry of removing the 

requirements that LNG fuel facilities 

submit an alternative request and meet 

with the COTP to conduct an ORA in 

lieu of a WSA. We estimate the total 

present value or discounted cost savings 

to industry of this final rule over a 10- 

year period of analysis to be about 

$116,496 in 2020 dollars, using a 7- 

percent discount rate. We estimate the 

annualized cost savings to industry to 

be about $16,586 in 2020 dollars, using 

a 7-percent discount rate. 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5674 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–C Cost Savings to Government 

Under the current regulation in 

§ 127.017, the Coast Guard must review 

alternative requests submitted by 

facilities seeking to conduct an ORA in 

lieu of WSA and meet with facility 

representatives at the COTP to discuss 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5675 

28The 2020 GSA rate for meals and incidental 

expenses for first and last day of travel is $41.25 

(See FY 2020 Per Diem Rates for Federal Travelers 

Released, GSA). 

29We obtained 18.75 percent by multiplying the 

proportion of facilities submitting alternative (75 

percent) by the proportion flying to the COTP (25 

percent) (i.e., 0.25 multiplied by 0.75 equals 

0.1875). 

the alternative. With this final rule, the 

Coast Guard no longer needs to review 

alternative requests, meet with facility 

representatives, and review a WSA, 

resulting in benefits, in the form of cost 

savings, to the Federal Government. 

According to the OMB-approved COI 

(Control Number 1625–0049), reviewing 

an alternative request requires 4 hours 

of enlisted staff time (2 hours of E–5 

time and 2 hours of E–6 time) and 1 

hour of two officers’ time combined (0.5 

hours of O–2 time and 0.5 hours of O– 

3 time). 

To estimate the labor cost of 

reviewing alternative requests, we used 

loaded hourly wage rates of officers and 

enlisted staff members in Commandant 

Instruction 7310.1U, Coast Guard 

Reimbursable Standard Rates. For the 

2020 fiscal year, the loaded hourly wage 

rates for O–2, O–3, E–5, and E–6 

employees were $70, $84, $54, and $62, 

respectively.30 Accordingly, we estimate 

the total labor cost of reviewing an 

alternative request to be about $311 (see 

table 8 for details). 

TABLE 8—GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS FOR NO LONGER REVIEWING ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS

[$2020] 

Employee code Loaded 

wage 

Hours Cost 

Cost savings 

Baseline Post-rule Baseline Post-rule 

(a) (b) (c) (d) = (a) × (b) (e) = (a) × (c) (f) = (e)¥(d) 

E–5 .................................................................................... $54 2 0 $108 $0 $108 

E–6 .................................................................................... 62 2 0 124 0 124 

O–2 .................................................................................... 70 0.5 0 35 0 35 

O–3 .................................................................................... 84 0.5 0 42 0 42 

Total ........................................................................... ................ 5 0 309 0 309 

Given that 75 percent of LNG fuel 

facilities have currently submitted an 

alternative request, and given that we 

estimate one submission annually, we 

estimate the annualized cost savings to 

the Federal Government of no longer 

reviewing these requests to be about 

$232 ($309 in cost saving × 1 facility × 

0.75), using a 7-percent discount rate. 

In addition to reviewing the 

alternative request, Coast Guard staff 

must also meet with representatives of 

the firm submitting the alternative 

request. Discussions with Coast Guard 

SMEs in CG–OES revealed that the 

meetings involve O–3 and O–4 level 

Coast Guard staff and last 2 hours. 

According to the Commandant 

Instruction 7310.1U, Coast Guard 

Reimbursable Standard Rates, for the 

2020 fiscal year, the loaded mean hourly 

wage rate for O–4 was $98. Accordingly, 

we estimate the total labor cost of 

reviewing an alternative request to be 

$364 ((2 hours of O–3 time × $84) + (2 

hours of O–4 time × $98)). Therefore, 

given the assumption that 75 percent of 

LNG fuel facilities will submit 

alternative requests, and given that there 

will be one submission annually, the 

average annual cost savings to the 

Federal Government of no longer 

meeting with facility representatives 

will be $273 ($364 in cost saving × 1 

facility × 0.75), undiscounted. 

Finally, we anticipate the Federal 

Government will save money by 

reviewing an ORA when compared to a 

WSA. The COI (Control Number 1625– 

0049) reports that reviewing a WSA and 

the corresponding hazard identification 

(HAZID) 31 study requires 20 hours of 

enlisted staff time (10 hours of E–5 time 

and 10 hours of E–6 time) and 40 hours 

of officer time (20 hours of O–2 time 

and 20 hours of O–3 time), costing 

approximately $4,240. Based on 

discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in 

Sector Jacksonville, reviewing an ORA 

and the corresponding HAZID study 

requires 38 hours of officer time (19 

hours of O–3 time and 19 hours of O– 

4 time), costing about $3,458. 

Accordingly, we estimate the cost 

savings from reviewing an ORA instead 

of a WSA to be about $782 ($4,240 ¥ 

$3,458), undiscounted (See table 9 for 

detail). 

TABLE 9—GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS TO REVIEW AN ORA AS OPPOSED TO A WSA 

Employee code Loaded 

wage 

Hours Cost 

Cost savings 

Baseline Post-rule Baseline Post-rule 

(a) (b) (c) (d) = (a) × (b) (e) = (a) × (c) (f) = (e)¥(d) 

E–5 .......................................................................................... $54 10 0 $540 $0 $540 

E–6 .......................................................................................... 62 10 0 620 0 620 

O–2 .......................................................................................... 70 20 0 1,400 0 1,400 

O–3 .......................................................................................... 84 20 19 1,680 1,596 84 

O–4 .......................................................................................... 98 0 19 0 1,862 -1,862 

Total ................................................................................. ................ 60 38 4,240 3,458 782 

Therefore, given that only 25 percent 

of the LNG facilities currently conduct 

a WSA, instead of submitting an 

alternative request, we estimate the 

annualized cost savings to the 

government of reviewing an ORA 

instead of a WSA to be about $196 ($782 

in cost savings × 1 facility × 0.25) using 

a 7-percent discount rate. 

Table 10 presents the total cost 

savings to the Federal Government 

associated with eliminating the 

requirement to submit an alternative 

request and meet with the COTP to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5676 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. We 

estimate the total discounted or present 

value cost savings to the Federal 

Government over a 10-year period of 

analysis to be about $4,918, using a 7- 

percent discount rate. We estimate the 

annualized cost savings to the Federal 

Government to be about $700, using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

TABLE 10—TOTAL GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS

[$2020] 

Year 

Cost savings item 

Total 

undiscounted 

cost savings 

Cost 

savings discounted at 

3% 

Cost 

savings discounted at 

7% 

Alternative 

submission 

review 

Meeting with 

industry 

representatives 

Reviewing 

WSAs 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (b) + (c) + (d) (f) = (e) ÷ (1.03)(a) (g) = (e) ÷ (1.07)(a)

1 ............................................ $232 $273 $196 $700 $680 $654 

2 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 660 612 

3 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 641 572 

4 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 622 534 

5 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 604 499 

6 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 586 467 

7 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 569 436 

8 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 553 408 

9 ............................................ 232 273 196 700 537 381 

10 .......................................... 232 273 196 700 521 356 

Total ............................... ........................ ............................ ........................ 7,003 5,973 4,918 

Annualized .............. ........................ ............................ ........................ ........................................ 700 700 

Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Total Cost Savings 

Table 11 summarizes the total cost 

savings of this final rule to industry and 

the Federal Government for the 10-year 

period of analysis. We estimate the total 

discounted or present value cost savings 

to industry and the Federal Government 

over a 10-year period of analysis to be 

about $121,414 in 2020 dollars, using a 

7-percent discount rate. We estimate the 

annualized cost savings to be about 

$17,287 in 2020 dollars, using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

TABLE 11—TOTAL COST SAVINGS TO INDUSTRY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[$2020] 

Year 

Total cost 

savings to 

industry 

Total cost 

savings to 

government 

Total 

undiscounted 

cost savings 

Discounted cost savings 

3% 7% 

1 ............................................................................................... $16,586 $700 $17,287 $16,783 $16,156 

2 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 16,294 15,099

3 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 15,820 14,111

4 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 15,359 13,188

5 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 14,912 12,325

6 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 14,477 11,519

7 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 14,056 10,765

8 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 13,646 10,061

9 ............................................................................................... 16,586 700 17,287 13,249 9,403 

10 ............................................................................................. 16,586 700 17,287 12,863 8,788 

Total .................................................................................. 165,863 7,003 172,866 147,458 121,414 

Annualized ................................................................. ...................... ...................... ........................ 17,287 17,287 

Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Unquantified Benefits 

This final rule has unquantified 

benefits to the regulated industry. This 

final rule updates the standards 

incorporated by reference to reflect the 

latest standards available to industry 

and requires all new LNG import/export 

facilities and waterfront facilities 

handling LHG to meet these standards. 

This requirement benefits the regulated 

industry as it eliminates the confusion 

that may arise from different standards 

existing in Coast Guard regulations that 

do not match current industry 

standards. 

Cost 

The requirements of this final rule do 

not add to industry costs compared to 

the no-action baseline. In particular, we 

determined that updating industry 

standards incorporated by reference in 

the regulation is a no-cost change. Based 

on discussions with an industry 

consultant and SMEs in CG–OES, we 

determined that industry builds new, 

expanded, and modified LNG import/ 

export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and 

LHG facilities to the most current 

standards available at the time, and not 

to the outdated standards currently 

codified in part 127. In addition, the 

new industry standards do not apply to 

facilities constructed, expanded, or 

modified under a contract-awarded after 

the implementation date of the final 

rule. Hence, we do not anticipate 

owners and operators of new, expanded 

and modified facilities to incur any cost 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5677 

to meet the updated or new industry 

standards. 

In addition, as part of the LOI, the 

Coast Guard is adding a new paragraph, 

§ 127.007(a)(1). This paragraph requires 

LNG import/export facilities that 

complete a WSA to provide information 

to the Coast Guard on the nation of 

registry and the nationality or 

citizenship of officers and crew serving 

on board vessels transporting LNG that 

are reasonably anticipated to be 

servicing that facility. This requirement 

will only be applicable when a facility 

has to submit the LOI and WSA to the 

Coast Guard, and is not required every 

time a vessel comes to port. Because 

both the LOI and WSA are submitted 

years before the facility becomes 

operational, Coast Guard SMEs have 

determined that it is highly unlikely any 

specific details regarding vessels and 

their crew will be known at the time the 

facility submits the LOI and WSA. Table 

12 summarizes the changes with no cost 

impacts. 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5678 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5679 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.009</GPH>
5680 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5681 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.011</GPH>
5682 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5683 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.013</GPH>
5684 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER02FE22.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5685 

32This is cost savings under the preferred option 

($17,287) minus the cost of meeting to industry, 

which equals $1,327 when driving and $1,669 

when flying, for a total of $2,996; and the cost of 

meeting to Government, which is $273. 

$17,287¥($2,996 + 273) = $14,018. 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–C 

Alternatives 

While developing this final rule, the 

Coast Guard considered three 

alternatives to the rule. We present a 

summary of the alternatives below and 

show their corresponding impact and 

cost savings in table 13. 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative, the Coast 

Guard would accept the status quo and 

review each proposal for an LNG fuel 

facility on a case-by-case, equivalency 

basis. We rejected this alternative 

because the Coast Guard believes this 

approach is inefficient in an 

environment of growing interest in LNG 

fuel because it does not respond to the 

needs of the U.S. maritime industry. 

This alternative would not impose any 

additional costs on industry, nor will 

this option result in cost savings for the 

affected facilities or the Coast Guard. 

Alternative 2: Submit an ORA, But Do 

Not Update the IBR Standards 

Alternative 

Under this alternative, the Coast 

Guard would allow new LNG fuel 

facilities to submit an ORA instead of a 

WSA without submitting an alternative 

request and meeting with the COTP. 

However, under this alternative, the 

Coast Guard would not update the 

existing IBR standards. This alternative 

would not impose any additional costs 

to industry and would result in cost 

savings. We rejected this alternative 

because the regulations would continue 

to reference outdated standards instead 

of reflecting industry best practices and 

the best technologies available to 

industry. 

Alternative 3: Continue To Meet With 

the COTP When Submitting the ORA 

Under this alternative, the Coast 

Guard would allow new LNG fuel 

facilities to submit an ORA instead of a 

WSA, as long as the facility 

representatives continue to meet with 

the COTP and get the ORA approved. 

Although this alternative would be less 

burdensome compared to the baseline, 

the Coast Guard rejected this alternative 

because it would require industry 

representatives to continue meeting 

with the COTP in person to discuss the 

ORA. 

One commenter expressed support for 

this alternative, noting that it would be 

beneficial if owners and operators 

continue to meet with the COTP before 

submitting an ORA, as this would 

reduce the amount of work facility 

owners would have to do to get the LNG 

fuel facility approved. Another 

commenter added that the meeting 

provides the COTP with an opportunity 

to notice any potential safety and 

security risks to the facility. As stated 

before, the Coast Guard expects owners 

and operators to continue meeting with 

the COTP, but has determined that the 

preliminary requirement for certain 

facilities to obtain the COTP’s approval 

prior to beginning the ORA should be 

eliminated. 

TABLE 13—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Annualized 

cost savings Impact of the alternative 

Final Rule ............................. $17,287 Codifies industry standards, establishes national baseline safety standards and alleviates discrepancies and unnecessary duplication between regulatory standards and industry best practices. In addition, it reduces the burden to industry by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having to submit an alternative request and meet 

with the COTP to obtain approval. 

Alternative 1: No Action ....... 0 This alternative would not codify minimum safety standards, respond to industry needs, or reduce industry burden. It would not impose any additional costs. 

Alternative 2: Submit an 

ORA, but do not update 

the IBR Standards Alternative.

17,287 This alternative would reduce the burden to industry by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having to submit an alternative request and meet 

with the COTP to obtain approval. However, it would not update IBR standards. This alternative would not impose any additional costs to industry. 

Alternative 3: Continue to 

Meet with the COTP when 

submitting an ORA.

32 14,018 This alternative would codify industry standards establishing national baseline safety standards. 

In addition, it would reduce the burden to industry by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA without first having to submit an alternative request. However, 

this alternative would still require meeting with the COTP, making it more burdensome compared to the final rule. This alternative would not impose any additional costs to industry, but 

has less cost savings compared to Alternative 2. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. There 

were no public comments pertaining to 

the analysis on small entities. 

This rule applies to new LNG fuel 

facilities, LNG import and export 

facilities, and new LHG facilities. A 

threshold analysis of the small entity 

impacts follows. 

LNG Fuel Facilities 

The Coast Guard has determined this 

rule will not generate costs on existing 

LNG fuel facilities but will generate cost 

savings to one new facility per year. In 

particular, we estimate that this rule 

will generate a net cost savings of about 

$16,586, using 7-percent discount rate, 

to one new LNG fuel facility per year, 

compared to the $16,153 net cost 

savings calculated in the proposed rule. 

To estimate the potential impact on 

small entities, we compare the $16,586 

in net cost savings with the annual 

revenue data of the new LNG fuel 

facility impacted by this rule. The Coast 

Guard determined that an entity would 

have to have an annual revenue of 

$1,658,600 or less for this rule to have 

an impact greater than 1 percent of 

revenue. 

Using the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) size standards 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5686 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

33Readers can view industry size standards at 

https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards (accessed July 11, 2019). 

table,33 we determined that two of the 

four LNG fuel facilities are small 

entities. These two small entities have a 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code of 213112 and 

541990. Based on SBA’s size standards 

table, the size standard for these codes 

is $38.5 million and $15 million, 

respectively. Publicly available data 

suggests that the annual revenue of the 

two facilities is about $2.4 million and 

about $3.8 million, respectively. Thus, 

conservatively assuming the new LNG 

fuel facility will have annual revenues 

equivalent to the smallest entity in the 

industry, we estimate that the economic 

impact, in the form of cost savings, of 

this rule will be approximately 0.69 

percent of revenue (($16,586 ÷ 

$2,400,000) × 100 = 0.6910)), compared 

to the 0.673 percent of revenue 

calculated in the proposed rule. 

No not-for-profit organizations are 

involved with LNG fuel facilities. In 

addition, this rule will not have an 

adverse or beneficial impact on small 

government entities. 

LNG Import/Export Facilities 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

this rule will have no cost or cost 

savings impact on existing and new 

LNG import/export facilities. Moreover, 

no not-for-profit organizations are 

involved with LNG import/export 

facilities. This rule will not have an 

adverse or beneficial impact on small 

government entities. 

LHG Facilities 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

this rule will have no cost or cost 

savings impact on existing and new 

LHG facilities. Moreover, no not-forprofit organizations are involved with 

LHG facilities. This rule will not have 

an adverse or beneficial impact on small 

government entities. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against 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 rule calls for a revised collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), 

‘‘collection of information’’ comprises 

reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, 

posting, labeling, and other similar 

actions. The title and description of the 

information collection, a description of 

those who must collect the information, 

and an estimate of the total annual 

burden follow. The estimate covers the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing sources of data, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection. 

Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling 

Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied 

Hazardous Gas. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0049. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: The Coast Guard currently 

collects information from waterfront 

facilities handling LNG and LHG under 

33 CFR part 127. The current 

information collection request contains 

requirements in the following sections: 

LOIs, WSAs, the submission of appeals 

to the Coast Guard, the submission of 

alternatives to the Coast Guard, 

Operations Manuals, Emergency 

Manuals, Certification of the Person in 

Charge, Declaration of Inspection, and 

Records of Maintenance. In addition, 

this rule will add a new collection of 

information for ORA submissions for 

new LNG fuel facilities. 

Need for Information: The Coast 

Guard has regulations that provide 

safety standards for the design and 

construction, equipment, operations, 

maintenance, personnel training, and 

fire protection at waterfront facilities 

handling LNG. These regulations help 

reduce the probability that an accident 

could occur and help reduce the damage 

and injury to persons and property 

should an accident occur. 

Use of Information: The Coast Guard 

currently uses the information collected 

for the following purposes: (1) To 

determine the suitability of a waterfront 

facility handling LNG to safely conduct 

LNG fuel transfer operations; (2) to 

properly evaluate alternative procedures 

to ensure they provide at least the same 

degree of safety as the regulations; (3) to 

ensure that safe operating procedures 

and an effective training program are set 

up by the waterfront facility operator; 

(4) to ensure that effective procedures 

have been set up by the waterfront 

facility operator to respond to 

emergencies; ensure the person in 

charge of an LNG or LHG transfer is 

properly qualified; and (5) to verify that 

persons in charge are following proper 

transfer procedures. 

Description of the Respondents: The 

respondents are LNG import/export 

facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG 

facilities. 

Number of Respondents: This rule 

does not change the number of 

respondents. However, we anticipate 

the number of waterfront facilities 

handling LNG will increase by three 

annually (two new LNG import/export 

facilities and one LNG fuel facility). We 

also anticipate three new LHG facilities 

will replace three retiring facilities 

annually. 

Frequency of Response: The number 

of responses will vary by requirement. 

This rule does not change the frequency 

of responses for existing requirements. 

However, this rule introduces a new 

ORA requirement, which is a one-time 

requirement for a LNG fuel facility. 

Burden of Response: The burden per 

response for each regulatory 

requirement varies. For the new ORA 

requirement, we estimate it will take 

289 hours to complete. Submitting an 

ORA in place of a WSA (500 hours per 

response) is a savings of 211 hours per 

response. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: To 

account for the change in the facility 

population and the new ORA option, we 

estimate that the burden will increase 

by 1,956 hours. 

For a new LNG import/export facility, 

this rule will require providing 

information to the Coast Guard at the 

time the WSA is submitted on the 

nation of registry for, and the nationality 

or citizenship of officers and crew 

serving on board vessels transporting 

natural gas that are reasonably 

anticipated to be servicing that facility. 

The Coast Guard does not expect the 

facility to have specific details regarding 

vessels and their crew when it submits 

the LOI and WSA to the Coast Guard, as 

these submissions happen several years 

before the facility begins operations. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act will not 

apply to this requirement as the Coast 

Guard anticipates only two new LNG 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5687 

34The Paperwork Reduction Act applies to 

collections of information using identical questions 

posed to, or reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons per 

year. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c), and Office of 

Management and Budget, Memorandum for the 

Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and 

Independent Regulatory Agencies, dated April 7, 

2010, at p. 2. 

import/export facilities per year will be 

subject to this requirement.34

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we 

will submit a copy of this rule to OMB 

for its review of the collection of 

information. 

You are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. OMB has not yet completed its 

review of this collection. Therefore, we 

are not making § 127.008 effective until 

OMB completes action on our 

information collection request, at which 

time we will publish a Federal Register 

notice describing OMB’s action and, if 

OMB grants approval, notifying you 

when § 127.008 takes effect. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct 

effect on States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under Executive 

Order 13132 and have determined that 

it is consistent with the fundamental 

federalism principles and preemption 

requirements described in Executive 

Order 13132. Our analysis follows. 

This rule, with respect to the LOI, 

WSA, and ORA submission 

requirements and COTP approval (33 

CFR 127.007, 127.008, 127.009, 127.015, 

and 127.017), does not conflict with 

State interests. They are procedural 

requirements for the Coast Guard’s own 

safety and security risk analysis, 

approval, and appeal process of a new, 

modified, or reactivated facility and its 

attendant LNG transfer operations. As it 

relates to other requirements imposed 

by individual States, or their political 

subdivisions, the submission and 

approval process for the construction of 

a new structure will be unaffected by 

this rule. 

Moreover, with respect to LNG 

transfer operations that may be included 

in the LOI, WSA, and ORA submissions, 

pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(1), 

Congress has expressly authorized the 

establishment of ‘‘procedures, measures 

and standards for the handling, loading, 

unloading, storage, stowage and 

movement on a structure of explosives 

or other dangerous articles and 

substances, including oil or hazardous 

material.’’ The Coast Guard 

affirmatively preempts any State rules 

related to these procedures, measures, 

and standards. See the Supreme Court’s 

decision in United States v. Locke, 529 

U.S. 89, 109–110 (2000). 

Regarding the updates of technical 

standards referenced in 33 CFR part 

127, it is Congress’s express intent that, 

with respect to waterfront structures, 

States retain the power to regulate to 

higher standards than those 

promulgated by the Coast Guard. As 

stated in 46 U.S.C. 70011(c), ‘‘State 

Law.—Nothing in this section, with 

respect to structures, prohibits a State or 

political subdivision thereof from 

prescribing higher safety equipment or 

safety standards than those that may be 

prescribed by regulations under this 

section.’’ Thus, Congress has made clear 

that the Federal standards promulgated 

under this section establish the uniform 

minimum standards of the United 

States, but individual States are entitled 

to impose higher safety equipment 

requirements or higher safety standards 

for structures within their jurisdiction. 

Therefore, other than with respect to 

structures as noted above, because the 

States may not regulate within these 

categories where such regulation 

conflicts with Federal requirements, this 

rule is consistent with the fundamental 

federalism principles and preemption 

requirements described in Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Although this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights). 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

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

Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

will not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175 (Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments), 

because it will 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use). We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

L. Technical Standards and 

Incorporation by Reference 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, codified as a 

note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

their regulatory activities unless the 

agency provides Congress, through 

OMB, with an explanation of why using 

these standards would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

specifications of materials, performance, 

design, or operation; test methods; 

sampling procedures; and related 

management systems practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. 

This rule incorporates by reference 

the following new voluntary consensus 

standards: 

• Det Norske Veritas (DNV), DNVGL– 

RP–G105, Recommended Practice, 

Development and operation of liquefied 

natural gas bunkering facilities, October 

2015 Edition. This standard provides 

guidance to the industry on the 

developmental, organizational, 

technical, functional, and operational 

issues of LNG bunkering (fueling) 

facilities in order to ensure global 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5688 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

35https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ 

publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023- 

01-001-01%20Rev%2001_

508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf. 

compatibility and secure a high level of 

safety, integrity, and reliability. The 

DNVGL–RP–G105 standard was selected 

because it aligns with the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO), 

(‘‘ISO/TS 18683’’), discussed below. 

Both of these standards provide 

guidance to industry on conducting risk 

assessments that are focused on 

providing LNG as a marine fuel 

(bunkering operations). 

• International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), (‘‘ISO/TS 

18683’’), Guidelines for systems and 

installations for supply of LNG as fuel 

to ships, First Edition, January 15, 2015. 

This standard gives guidance on the 

minimum requirements for the design 

and operation of the LNG bunkering 

(fueling) facility, including the interface 

between the LNG supply facilities and 

receiving ships. 

• ISO 28460:2010(E), (‘‘ISO 28460’’), 

Petroleum and natural gas industries— 

Installation and equipment for liquefied 

natural gas—Ship-to-shore interface and 

port operations, First edition, December 

15, 2010. This standard specifies the 

requirements for ship, terminal, and 

port service providers to ensure the safe 

transit of an LNG carrier through the 

port area and the safe and efficient 

transfer of its cargo. 

This rule incorporates by reference 

the following updated voluntary 

consensus standards: 

• American Petroleum Institute (API), 

API Recommended Practice 2003, (‘‘API 

RP 2003’’) Protection Against Ignitions 

Arising Out of Static, Lightning and 

Stray Currents, Eighth Edition, 

September 2015. This standard presents 

the current state of knowledge and 

technology in the fields of static 

electricity and stray currents applicable 

to the prevention of hydrocarbon 

ignition in the petroleum industry, 

based on both scientific research and 

practical experience. 

• The American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ASME 

B16.5–2020, Pipe Flanges and Flanged 

Fittings, NPS 1⁄2 through NPS 24 Metric/ 

Inch Standard, Issued January 29, 2021. 

This standard covers pressuretemperature ratings, materials, 

dimensions, tolerances, marking, 

testing, and methods of designating 

openings for pipe flanges and flanged 

fittings. 

• ASME B31.3–2020, Process Piping, 

ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, 

Issued June 18, 2021. This standard 

contains requirements for piping 

typically found in petroleum refineries; 

chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, 

paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic 

plants; and related processing plants 

and terminals. It covers materials and 

components, design, fabrication, 

assembly, erection, examination, 

inspection, and testing of piping. 

• ASTM International, ASTM E119– 

20, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests 

of Building Construction and Materials, 

approved May 1, 2020. This standard 

provides methods of fire tests applicable 

to assemblies of masonry units and to 

composite assemblies of structural 

materials for buildings, including 

bearing and other walls, partitions, 

columns, girders, beams, slabs, and 

composite slab and beam assemblies for 

floors and roofs. This standard also 

applies to other assemblies and 

structural units that constitute 

permanent integral parts of a finished 

building. 

• ASTM F 1121–87 (Reapproved 

2019), Standard Specification for 

International Shore Connections for 

Marine Fire Applications, approved 

December 1, 2019, published January 

2020. This standard covers the 

specifications for the design and 

manufacture of international shore 

connections used with marine 

firefighting systems during an 

emergency when a stricken ship has a 

system failure. 

• International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC), IEC 60079–29–1, 

Explosive atmospheres—Part 29–1: Gas 

detectors—Performance requirements of 

detectors for flammable gases, Edition 

2.0, July 2016. This standard specifies 

general requirements for construction, 

testing, and performance, and describes 

the test methods that apply to portable, 

transportable, and fixed apparatus for 

the detection and measurement of 

flammable gas or vapor concentrations 

with air. 

• National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), NFPA 10, Standard 

for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 

Edition, effective August 21, 2017. This 

standard applies to the selection, 

installation, inspection, maintenance, 

recharging, and testing of portable 

extinguishing equipment and Class D 

extinguishing agents. 

• NFPA 30, Flammable and 

Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 

Edition, effective September 6, 2017. 

This standard applies to the storage, 

handling, and use of flammable and 

combustible liquids, including waste 

liquids. 

• NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire 

Prevention During Welding, Cutting, 

and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, 

effective July 15, 2018. This standard 

covers provisions to prevent injury, loss 

of life, and loss of property from fire or 

explosion as a result of hot work. 

• NFPA 59A, Standard for the 

Production, Storage, and Handling of 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 

Edition, effective November 25, 2018. 

This standard provides minimum fire 

protection, safety, and related 

requirements for the location, design, 

construction, security, operation, and 

maintenance of LNG plants. 

• NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 

2020 Edition, effective August 25, 2019. 

The provisions of this standard apply to 

the design, modification, construction, 

inspection, maintenance, and testing of 

electrical systems, installations, and 

equipment. 

The list of these standards and the 

locations where these standards are 

available is found in § 127.003. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that does not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. A final Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

This rule is categorically excluded 

under paragraphs A3 and L54 in 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Directive 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 1.35 Paragraph A3 pertains to 

promulgation of rules and other 

guidance documents that interpret or 

amend existing regulations without 

changing its environmental effect. 

Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations 

that are editorial or procedural. This 

rule promotes the Coast Guard’s 

maritime safety and Ports and waterway 

security missions. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127 

Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Natural gas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 127 as follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5689 

PART 127—WATERFRONT FACILITIES 

HANDLING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS 

AND LIQUEFIED HAZARDOUS GAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 127 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2); 46 U.S.C. 

70011 and 70034; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 

DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 

01.2, paragraph (II)(92)(a). 

■ 2. Amend § 127.001 by: 

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

‘‘existing’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (f). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 127.001 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d), 

and 127.019(b) of subpart A of this part 

apply to the marine transfer area for 

LNG of each inactive facility. 

* * * * * 

(f) Waterfront facilities handling LNG 

and LHG constructed, expanded, or 

modified under a contract awarded after 

March 4, 2022, are required to comply 

with the applicable standards 

referenced in § 127.003. All other 

facilities, unless expanded or modified 

in accordance with this part, are 

required to meet previously applicable 

standards but may request to apply a 

later edition of the standards in 

accordance with § 127.017. 

■ 3. Revise § 127.003 to read as follows: 

§ 127.003 Incorporation by reference. 

Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the U.S. Coast 

Guard, Office of Operating and 

Environmental Standards (CG–OES), 

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 

STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593– 

7509, 202–372–1410, and is available 

from the sources listed in the following 

paragraphs. It is also available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email fr.inspection@

nara.gov or go to https://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. (See § 127.017 for 

alternative compliance methods.) 

(a) American Petroleum Institute 

(API), 200 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 

Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001– 

5571, 202–682–8000, http://

www.api.org. 

(1) API Recommended Practice 2003 

(‘‘API RP 2003’’), Protection Against 

Ignitions Arising Out of Static, 

Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth 

Edition, September 2015, for 

§ 127.1101(h). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) The American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two 

Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– 

5990, 800–843–2763, https://

www.asme.org. 

(1) ASME B16.5–2020, Pipe Flanges 

and Flanged Fittings, NPS 1⁄2 Through 

NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard, Issued 

January 29, 2021, for § 127.1102(a). 

(2) ASME B31.3–2020, Process Piping, 

ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, 

Issued June 18, 2021, for § 127.1101(a). 

(c) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 19428–2959, 610– 

832–9500, https://www.astm.org. 

(1) ASTM E119–20, Standard Test 

Methods for Fire Tests of Building 

Construction and Materials, approved 

May 1, 2020, for § 127.005. 

(2) ASTM F1121–87 (Reapproved 

2019), Standard Specification for 

International Shore Connections for 

Marine Fire Applications, approved 

December 1, 2019, for §§ 127.611 and 

127.1511. 

(d) Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 

Veritasveien 1, 1363 H<vik Norway, +47 

6757 9900, https://www.dnv.com. 

(1) DNVGL–RP–G105, Recommended 

Practice, Development and operation of 

liquefied natural gas bunkering 

facilities, October 2015 Edition, for 

§ 127.008(d). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC), IEC Central Office, 3 

rue de Varembe ́, P.O. Box 131, CH 1211, 

Geneva 20, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 

11, https://www.iec.ch. 

(1) IEC 60079–29–1, Explosive 

atmospheres—Part 29–1: Gas 

detectors—Performance requirements of 

detectors for flammable gases, Edition 

2.0, July 2016, for § 127.1203(a). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(f) International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), Chemin de 

Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, 

Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11, 

https://www.iso.org. 

(1) ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), (‘‘ISO/TS 

18683’’), Guidelines for systems and 

installations for supply of LNG as fuel 

to ships, First Edition, January 15, 2015, 

for § 127.008(d)(1). 

(2) ISO 28460:2010(E), (‘‘ISO 28460’’), 

Petroleum and natural gas industries— 

Installation and equipment for liquefied 

natural gas—Ship-to-shore interface and 

port operations, First edition, December 

15, 2010, for § 127.008(d)(2). 

(g) National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch 

Park, Quincy, MA 02169–7471, 800– 

344–3555, https://www.nfpa.org. 

(1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable 

Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, 

effective August 21, 2017, for 

§§ 127.603(a) and 127.1503. 

(2) NFPA 30, Flammable and 

Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 

Edition, effective September 6, 2017, for 

§§ 127.313(b) and 127.1313(b). 

(3) NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire 

Prevention During Welding, Cutting, 

and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, 

effective July 15, 2018, for §§ 127.405(b) 

and 127.1405(b). 

(4) NFPA 59A, Standard for the 

Production, Storage, and Handling of 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 

Edition, effective November 25, 2018, 

for §§ 127.008(d), 127. 101, 127.201(b) 

and (c), 127.405(a) and (b), and 

127.603(a). 

(5) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 

2020 Edition, effective August 25, 2019, 

for §§ 127.107(a) and (c), 127.201(c), and 

127.1107. 

■ 4. In § 127.005, revise the definitions 

of ‘‘Facility’’ and ‘‘Fire endurance 

rating’’ and add a definition for ‘‘LNG 

fuel facility’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 127.005 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Facility means either a waterfront 

facility handling LHG or a waterfront 

facility handling LNG, and includes 

LNG fuel facilities. 

Fire endurance rating means the 

duration for which an assembly or 

structural unit will contain a fire or 

retain structural integrity when exposed 

to the temperatures specified in the 

standard time-temperature curve in 

ASTM E119–20 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 127.003). 

* * * * * 

LNG fuel facility means a waterfront 

facility that handles LNG for the sole 

purpose of providing LNG from shorebased structures to vessels for use as a 

marine fuel, and that does not transfer 

LNG to or receive LNG from vessels 

capable of carrying LNG in bulk as 

cargo. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 127.007 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading, and 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (e); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (i). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5690 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 127.007 Letter of intent and waterway 

suitability assessment for waterfront 

facilities handling LNG or LHG. 

(a) An owner or operator intending to 

build a new facility handling LNG or 

LHG, or an owner or operator planning 

new construction to expand marine 

terminal operations in any facility 

handling LNG or LHG, where the 

construction or expansion will result in 

an increase in the size or frequency of 

LNG or LHG marine traffic on the 

waterway associated with a facility, 

must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to 

the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the 

zone in which the facility is or will be 

located. The LOI must meet the 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(1) The owner or operator of an LNG 

facility must submit the LOI to the 

COTP no later than the date that the 

owner or operator files a pre-filing 

request with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) under 

18 CFR parts 153 and 157, but, in all 

cases, at least 1 year prior to the start of 

construction. The LOI must include the 

nation of registry for, and the nationality 

or citizenship of the officers and crew 

serving on board, vessels transporting 

LNG that are reasonably anticipated to 

be servicing the LNG facility. 

(2) The owner or operator of an LHG 

facility must submit the LOI to the 

COTP no later than the date that the 

owner or operator files with the Federal 

or State agency having jurisdiction, but, 

in all cases, at least 1 year prior to the 

start of construction. 

(b) An owner or operator intending to 

reactivate an inactive facility must 

submit an LOI that meets paragraph (c) 

of this section to the COTP of the zone 

in which the facility is located. 

(1) The owner or operator of an LNG 

facility must submit the LOI to the 

COTP no later than the date the owner 

or operator files a pre-filing request with 

FERC under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157, 

but, in all cases, at least 1 year prior to 

the start of LNG transfer operations. 

(2) The owner or operator of an LHG 

facility must submit the LOI to the 

COTP no later than the date the owner 

or operator files with the Federal or 

State agency having jurisdiction, but, in 

all cases, at least 1 year prior to the start 

of LHG transfer operations. 

* * * * * 

(e) An owner or operator intending to 

build a new LNG or LHG facility, or an 

owner or operator planning new 

construction to expand marine terminal 

operations in any facility handling LNG 

or LHG, where the construction or 

expansion will result in an increase in 

the size or frequency of LNG or LHG 

marine traffic on the waterway 

associated with a facility, must file or 

update as appropriate a waterway 

suitability assessment (WSA) with the 

COTP of the zone in which the facility 

is or will be located. The WSA must 

consist of a Preliminary WSA and a 

Follow-on WSA. A COTP may request 

additional information during review of 

the Preliminary WSA or Follow-on 

WSA. 

* * * * * 

(i) An owner or operator intending to 

construct a new LNG fuel facility or 

modify any LNG fuel facility, or 

reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility, 

may comply with § 127.008 in lieu of 

meeting the requirements in this 

section. 

■ 6. Add § 127.008 to read as follows: 

§ 127.008 Letter of intent and operational 

risk assessment for LNG fuel facilities. 

(a) An owner or operator intending to 

build a new LNG fuel facility, modify 

construction of any LNG fuel facility, or 

reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility 

electing to complete an operational risk 

assessment (ORA) in lieu of a WSA as 

outlined in § 127.007, must submit an 

LOI and ORA to the COTP of the zone 

in which the LNG fuel facility is or will 

be located at least 1 year prior to the 

start of LNG transfer operations. 

(b) Each LOI must contain the 

information in § 127.007(c)(1) through 

(c)(5). 

(c) The owner or operator who 

submits an LOI under paragraph (a) of 

this section must notify the COTP in 

writing within 15 days of any of the 

following: 

(1) There is any change in the 

information submitted under paragraph 

(b) of this section; or 

(2) No LNG fuel transfer operations 

are scheduled within the next 12 

months. 

(d) The ORA required by paragraph 

(a) must: 

(1) Be carried out in accordance with 

Chapter 7 of ISO/TS 18683 and 

Appendix D of DNVGL–RP–G105; or 

Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A (all 

incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003); or other industry developed 

risk assessment method acceptable to 

the Office of Operating and 

Environmental Standards, Commandant 

(CG–OES); and 

(2) Consider possible factors affecting 

the ship/shore interface and port 

operations described in Section 6 of ISO 

28460 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003). 

■ 7. In § 127.009, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 127.009 Letter of recommendation. 

(a) After the COTP receives the 

information and analyses required by 

§ 127.007 or § 127.008, the COTP issues 

a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to 

the suitability of the waterway for LNG 

or LHG marine traffic or the operational 

safety and security of the LNG fuel 

facility to the Federal, State, or local 

government agencies having jurisdiction 

for siting, construction, and operation, 

and, at the same time, sends a copy to 

the owner or operator, based on the— 

(1) Information submitted under 

§ 127.007 or § 127.008; 

* * * * * 

§ 127.011 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 127.011 by removing the 

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

the word ‘‘must’’. 

■ 9. In § 127.015, revise paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 127.015 Appeals. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Appeal that ruling in writing to the 

Assistant Commandant for Prevention 

Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, (CG–5P), 2703 

Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 

7509, Washington, DC 20593–7509; and 

* * * * * 

(d) The Assistant Commandant for 

Prevention Policy issues a ruling after 

reviewing the appeal submitted under 

paragraph (c) of this section, which is 

final agency action. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 127.017, revise the paragraph 

(a) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 127.017 Alternatives. 

(a) The COTP may allow alternative 

procedures, methods, or equipment 

standards, including alternatives to 

standards listed in § 127.003, to be used 

by an operator instead of any 

requirements in this part if— 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Revise § 127.101 to read as 

follows: 

§ 127.101 Design and construction: 

General. 

The marine transfer area for LNG 

must meet the following criteria in 

NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, 

see § 127.003): 

(a) Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.7; 

(b) Chapter 6, Section 6.7; 

(c) Chapter 10; 

(d) Chapter 11, except Sections 11.9, 

and 11.10; 

(e) Chapter 12; 

(f) Chapter 15, except Sections 15.4 

and 15.6; and 

(g) Annex B. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 5691 

■ 12. In § 127.107, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 127.107 Electrical power systems. 

(a) The electrical power system must 

have a power source and a separate 

emergency power source, so that failure 

of one source does not affect the 

capability of the other source. The 

system must meet NFPA 70 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003). 

* * * * * 

(c) If an auxiliary generator is used as 

an emergency power source, it must 

meet Section 700.12 of NFPA 70 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003). 

■ 13. In § 127.201, revise paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (c)(1) and (2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 127.201 Sensing and alarm systems. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Meet Section 16.4 of NFPA 59A 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003). 

(c) * * * 

(1) Be in each enclosed or covered 

Class I, Division 1, hazardous location 

defined in Section 500.5(B)(1) of NFPA 

70 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003) and each area in which 

flammable or combustible material is 

stored; and 

(2) Meet Section 16.4 of NFPA 59A 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003). 

§ 127.301 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 127.301(b), remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.311 [Amended] 

■ 15. In § 127.311(a), remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.313 [Amended] 

■ 16. Amend § 127.313 by: 

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

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

word ‘‘must’’; and 

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

‘‘Chapter 4 of NFPA 30’’ and adding, in 

its place, the text ‘‘NFPA 30 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.315 [Amended] 

■ 17. In § 127.315 introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.317 [Amended] 

■ 18. In § 127.317(a) and (b), remove the 

word ‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and 

add, in its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.319 [Amended] 

■ 19. In § 127.319(a) and (b), remove the 

word ‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears and 

add, in its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.321 [Amended] 

■ 20. In § 127.321, remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.401 [Amended] 

■ 21. In § 127.401, remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.403 [Amended] 

■ 22. In § 127.403, remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

■ 23. In § 127.405, revise the 

introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 127.405 Repairs. 

The operator must ensure that— 

(a) * * * 

(1) The equipment continues to meet 

the applicable requirements in this 

subpart and in NFPA 59A (incorporated 

by reference, see § 127.003); and 

* * * * * 

(b) Welding is done in accordance 

with NFPA 51B and Section 10.4.3 of 

NFPA 59A (both incorporated by 

reference, see § 127.003). 

§ 127.407 [Amended] 

■ 24. In § 127.407(a), remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.409 [Amended] 

■ 25. In § 127.409(a), remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

■ 26. In § 127.603, revise paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 127.603 Portable fire extinguishers. 

* * * * * 

(a) Portable fire extinguishers that 

meet Section 16.6.1 of NFPA 59A and 

Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 (both 

incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003); and 

* * * * * 

§ 127.611 [Amended] 

■ 27. In § 127.611, remove the text 

‘‘ASTM F 1121’’ and add, in its place, 

the text ‘‘ASTM F1121–87 (Reapproved 

2019)’’. 

§ 127.613 [Amended] 

■ 28. In § 127.613, remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.615 [Amended] 

■ 29. In § 127.615, remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.617 [Amended] 

■ 30. In § 127.617, remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§§ 127.701 through 127.711 [Removed] 

■ 31. Remove §§ 127.701 through 

127.711, including the undesignated 

center heading ‘‘Security’’ that precedes 

§ 127.701. 

§ 127.1101 [Amended] 

■ 32. Amend § 127.1101 by: 

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

‘‘ASME B31.3’’ and adding, in its place, 

the text ‘‘ASME B31.3–2020 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003)’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (h), after the text ‘‘API 

RP 2003’’ adding the text ‘‘(incorporated 

by reference, see § 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.1102 [Amended] 

■ 33. In § 127.1102(a)(4)(ii), remove the 

text ‘‘ANSI B16.5’’ and add, in its place, 

the text ‘‘ASME B16.5–2020 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.1103 [Amended] 

■ 34. In § 127.1103, remove the word 

‘‘existing’’ wherever it appears. 

§ 127.1105 [Amended] 

■ 35. In § 127.1105 introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘existing’’. 

§ 127.1107 [Amended] 

■ 36. In § 127.1107, after the text ‘‘NFPA 

70’’ add the text ‘‘(incorporated by 

reference, see § 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.1203 [Amended] 

■ 37. In § 127.1203(a), remove the text 

‘‘ANSI S12.13, Part I’’ and add, in its 

place, the text ‘‘IEC 60079–29–1 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.1207 [Amended] 

■ 38. In § 127.1207(c), remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1301 [Amended] 

■ 39. In § 127.1301(b), remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5692 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 127.1302 [Amended] 

■ 40. In § 127.1302(a) introductory text 

and (c), remove the word ‘‘shall’’ 

wherever it appears, and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1311 [Amended] 

■ 41. In § 127.1311, remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1313 [Amended] 

■ 42. Amend § 127.1313 as follows: 

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

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

‘‘must’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, 

in its place, the word ‘‘must’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the text, ‘‘Chapter 4 of 

NFPA 30’’; and add, in its place the text 

‘‘NFPA 30 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.1315 [Amended] 

■ 43. In § 127.1315 introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1317 [Amended] 

■ 44. In § 127.1317(a), (d), and (e), 

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ wherever it 

appears, and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1319 [Amended] 

■ 45. In § 127.1319, remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1321 [Amended] 

■ 46. In § 127.1321, remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1325 [Amended] 

■ 47. In § 127.1325 introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1401 [Amended] 

■ 48. In § 127.1401, remove the word 

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

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1403 [Amended] 

■ 49. In § 127.1403, remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1405 [Amended] 

■ 50. Amend § 127.1405 as follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, remove the 

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

word ‘‘must’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the 

word ‘‘and’’; and 

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

‘‘NFPA 51B’’, add the text 

‘‘(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.1407 [Amended] 

■ 51. In § 127.1407(a) introductory text 

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

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ wherever it 

appears, and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1409 [Amended] 

■ 52. In § 127.1409, remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1501 [Amended] 

■ 53. In § 127.1501(a), delete the word 

‘‘existing.’’ 

§ 127.1503 [Amended] 

■ 54. In § 127.1503, after the text ‘‘NFPA 

10’’, add the text ‘‘(incorporated by 

reference, see § 127.003)’’. 

§ 127.1511 [Amended] 

■ 55. In § 127.1511, remove the text 

‘‘ASTM F 1121’’ and add, in its place, 

the text ‘‘ASTM F1121–87 (Reapproved 

2019)’’. 

§ 127.1601 [Amended] 

■ 56. In § 127.1601 introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1603 [Amended] 

■ 57. In § 127.1603 introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

§ 127.1605 [Amended] 

■ 58. In § 127.1605 introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

Dated: January 24, 2022. 

J.W. Mauger, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01888 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

36 CFR Part 1155 

[Docket No. ATBCB–2020–0003] 

RIN 3014–AA46 

Procedures for Issuing Guidance 

Documents; Recission 

AGENCY: Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Executive 

Order entitled ‘‘Revocation of Certain 

Executive Orders concerning Federal 

Regulation’’, the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (hereafter, ‘‘Access Board,’’ or 

‘‘Board’’), is removing its regulation that 

details internal procedures for issuance, 

public availability, modification, and 

withdrawal of agency guidance 

documents, as defined by the Executive 

Order entitled ‘‘Promoting the Rule of 

Law Through Agency Guidance 

Documents’’. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 2, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General Counsel Christopher Kuczynski, 

(202) 272–0042, generalcounsel@accessboard.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13891, 

‘‘Promoting the Rule of Law Through 

Improved Agency Guidance 

Documents,’’ issued on October 9, 2019, 

required each agency to promulgate 

regulations that ‘‘set forth processes and 

procedures for issuing guidance 

documents.’’ 84 FR 55235. On 

September 21, 2020, the Board issued a 

final rule, entitled ‘‘Guidance 

Documents,’’ to implement E.O. 13891. 

85 FR 59187. The final rule established 

36 CFR part 1155, which created 

internal procedural requirements 

governing the issuance, public 

availability, and modification or 

withdrawal of Access Board guidance 

documents. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued E.O. 13992, ‘‘Revocation of 

Certain Executive Orders Concerning 

Federal Regulation,’’ which, among 

other things, revokes E.O. 13891. 86 FR 

7049. To comply with the new 

executive order, the Access Board is 

rescinding its newly-issued guidance 

procedures codified at 36 CFR part 

1155. Nonetheless, the Board intends to 

retain all Access Board guidance 

documents in a single location on the 

agency’s website at www.accessboard.gov/guidance, as we believe this 

improves the usability of, and access to, 

our guidance documents for the public. 

II. Regulatory Process Matters 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The rescinded guidance procedures 

and this final rule solely address 

internal matters related to agency 

management and practices. As such, 

this rule is exempt from the notice-andcomment process pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(2), 553(b)(3)(A). The 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1