19158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

coverage provided for medical and 

surgical benefits? 

6. Which aspects of the increased cost 

exemption, if any, require additional 

guidance? Would model notices be 

helpful to facilitate disclosure to Federal 

agencies, State agencies, and 

participants and beneficiaries regarding 

a plan’s or issuer’s election to 

implement the cost exemption? 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

December 2008. 

Nancy J. Marks, 

Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, 

Tax Exempt and Government Entities, 

Internal Revenue Service, Department of the 

Treasury. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

January 2009. 

W. Thomas Reeder, 

Benefits Tax Counsel, Department of the 

Treasury. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

April 2009. 

Alan D. Lebowitz, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program 

Operations, Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Dated: March 9, 2009. 

Charlene Frizzera, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

[FR Doc. E9–9629 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P; 4510–29–P; 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 127 

[Docket No. USCG–2007–27022] 

RIN 1625–AB13 

Revision of LNG and LHG Waterfront 

Facility General Requirements 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

revise the requirements for waterfront 

facilities handling liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas 

(LHG). The proposed revisions would 

bring the regulations up to date with 

existing industry practices and current 

Coast Guard policy implemented due to 

increased emphasis on security since 

the events of September 11, 2001. These 

revisions would harmonize the Coast 

Guard’s regulations for LNG with those 

established by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC), the 

agency responsible for permitting 

onshore and near-shore LNG terminals. 

This proposed rulemaking would not 

affect LNG deepwater ports. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before June 29, 2009 or reach the 

Docket Management Facility by that 

date. Comments sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on 

collection of information must reach 

OMB on or before June 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2007–27022 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. For instructions 

on submitting comments, see the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. 

Collection of Information Comments: 

If you have comments on the collection 

of information discussed in section V.D. 

of this NPRM, you must also send 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget. To ensure that 

your comments to OIRA are received on 

time, the preferred methods are by email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov 

(include the docket number and 

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for Coast 

Guard, DHS’’ in the subject line of the 

e-mail) or fax at 202–395–6566. An 

alternate, though slower, method is by 

U.S. mail to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call CDR Patrick Clark, CG–5222, 

U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202–372– 

1410. If you have questions on viewing 

or submitting material to the docket, call 

Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meetings 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Background and Purpose 

A. Discussion of FERC Regulations in 

Regard to LNG 

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2007–27022), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online, or by fax, mail or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG– 

2007–27022’’ in the Docket ID box, 

press Enter, and then click on the 

balloon shape in the Actions column. If 

you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19159 

We will consider all comments and 

material received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert (USCG– 

2007–27022) in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the item in the 

Docket ID column. If you do not have 

access to the Internet, you may view the 

docket online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008 issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meetings 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But, you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that a public 

meeting would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

II. Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland 

Security 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

FR Federal Register 

LHG Liquefied hazardous gas 

LNG Liquefied natural gas 

LOI Letter of Intent 

LOR Letter of Recommendation 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

NVIC Navigation and Vessel 

Inspection Circular 

OMB Office of Management and 

Budget 

§ Section symbol 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WSA Waterway Suitability 

Assessment 

III. Background and Purpose 

Over the last few years, there has been 

a substantial increase in the worldwide 

production and transportation of 

liquefied natural gas (LNG). Currently, 

the United States consumes about 25 

percent of the world’s annual natural 

gas production. Over the next 20 years, 

U.S. natural gas consumption is 

projected to increase by 40 percent, and 

our domestic gas production is not 

expected to meet this need. Therefore, 

this likely shortfall may be resolved by 

increasing marine LNG imports. 

Currently, there are eight waterfront 

LNG facilities in the United States: 

seven are import facilities, and one is an 

export facility. To meet rising demand, 

the energy industry has submitted 

dozens of proposals to build LNG 

import terminals along our coasts, and 

an unspecified number of proposals are 

in the early planning stages. 

We have not seen, and do not expect, 

a similar increase in the production and 

transportation of other forms of 

liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). 

Although LNG and LHG facilities and 

the cargoes they handle are different in 

nature, we believe the vessels that 

transport these cargoes pose similar 

risks to the waterway environment and 

the area surrounding the facility when 

transfer operations are underway. 

Safety and security of our ports and 

waterways have become paramount 

concerns since the events of September 

11, 2001. Currently, the owner or 

operator intending to construct, modify, 

or reactivate an LNG or LHG facility 

must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to 

the Coast Guard. Information obtained 

in the LOI enables the Coast Guard to 

provide specific recommendations, in a 

Letter of Recommendation (LOR), to the 

agencies having jurisdiction. The LOR 

serves as the Coast Guard’s official 

recommendation to the jurisdictional 

agency as to the suitability of the 

waterway for the proposed facility. 

In the case of LNG facilities regulated 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), the LOI has been 

augmented by a Waterway Suitability 

Assessment (WSA). The WSA is a riskbased assessment process designed to 

document and address all safety and 

security concerns related to the 

movement of LNG in U.S. ports and 

waterways. As discussed below, FERC 

regulations have required since 2005 

that prospective applicants for FERC 

authorization to site, construct and 

operate LNG terminals submit WSAs to 

the Coast Guard; guidance on 

submission of WSAs is provided in 

Navigation and Vessel Inspection 

Circular (NVIC) 05–08, available online 

at http://uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/ 

2000s.asp. 

The proposed rule would establish 

the WSA requirement in Coast Guard 

regulations, better aligning the 

regulations of the Coast Guard and 

FERC with regard to LNG. Although 

FERC generally does not regulate LHG 

facilities, this proposed rule would 

establish the WSA requirement for both 

LNG and LHG facilities because of the 

similarities between these cargoes. 

A. Discussion of FERC Regulations in 

Regard to LNG 

FERC regulates LNG import facilities 

located onshore or in state waters, but 

generally does not regulate facilities 

receiving marine deliveries of LHG. This 

section provides background 

information specific to FERC-regulated 

LNG facilities. 

On October 18, 2005, FERC published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (70 

FR 60426) implementing the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 and creating 

procedures for the review of LNG 

terminals and other natural gas 

facilities. The FERC final rule amended 

18 CFR parts 153 and 157 by requiring 

LNG and other natural gas facility 

owners and operators (referred 

collectively herein as ‘‘LNG owners and 

operators’’) to submit WSAs to the U.S. 

Coast Guard as part of the FERC prefiling process. Although the WSA 

currently is required by FERC 

regulations, not Coast Guard 

regulations, the Coast Guard considers 

the WSA in developing its LOR. 

Prospective applicants seeking FERC’s 

authorization to site, construct, and 

operate new LNG facilities, and some 

prospective applicants seeking authority 

to make modifications to an existing or 

approved LNG terminal, are required by 

FERC to make an initial filing to FERC 

and, concurrently, submit a Letter of 

Intent (LOI) and a Preliminary WSA to 

the Coast Guard. After the submission of 

the initial filing, the Director of FERC’s 

Office of Energy Projects (Director) 

determines whether the applicant may 

begin the pre-filing process. If the 

prospective applicant meets the 

requirements to begin the pre-filing 

process, the Director will issue a notice 

that begins the pre-filing process. 

During the pre-filing process, the 

prospective applicant must satisfy 

several requirements, including the 

requirement in 18 CFR 157.21(f) that a 

prospective applicant ‘‘[c]ertify that a 

Follow-on WSA will be submitted to the 

U.S. Coast Guard no later than the filing 

of an application with the Commission 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19160 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(for LNG terminal facilities and 

modifications thereto, if appropriate). 

The applicant must certify that the U.S. 

Coast Guard has indicated that a 

Follow-on WSA is not required, if 

appropriate.’’ 

The prospective applicant must wait 

at least 180 days after the 

commencement of the FERC pre-filing 

process in order to start the FERC filing 

process. Thus, the FERC regulations 

result in the LOI being submitted at 

least 180 days before the applicant files 

its application for authorization to 

construct the facility with FERC, even 

though the existing Coast Guard 

regulations for new and modified 

facilities require the LOI be submitted at 

least 60 days before construction begins. 

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would align Coast 

Guard regulations for LNG in 33 CFR 

part 127 with the existing FERC 

requirements in 18 CFR parts 153 and 

157. Due to the similarities between 

LNG and LHG, and between LNG and 

LHG regulations throughout part 127, 

this rulemaking would maintain the 

consistent application by the Coast 

Guard of these regulations for both LNG 

and LHG. 

The Coast Guard proposes amending 

the LOI submission requirements in 

§ 127.007 to provide more time for 

review and, in the case of LNG, to 

ensure consistency with the 

requirements established by FERC. 

Current Coast Guard regulations require 

an owner or operator seeking to 

construct or modify an LNG or LHG 

facility to submit the LOI to the Coast 

Guard at least 60 days before 

construction begins. For reactivation of 

inactive facilities under current 

regulations, the LOI is required at least 

60 days before transferring LNG or LHG. 

The proposed rule would require the 

LOI be submitted earlier and, to 

accommodate FERC regulations, would 

result in slightly different LOI 

submission requirements for LNG 

facilities as compared to LHG facilities. 

For LNG facility owners or operators 

seeking to construct or modify a facility, 

the LOI would be submitted 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 one year prior to the start of 

construction. For inactive existing LNG 

facilities seeking reactivation, the LOI 

would be submitted no later than the 

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

parts 153 and 157, but in all cases at 

least one year prior to the start of 

transfer operations. 

For LHG facilities seeking 

construction or modification, the LOI 

would be submitted no later than the 

date the owner or operator files with the 

federal or state agency having 

jurisdiction, but in all cases at least one 

year prior to the start of construction. 

For inactive LHG facilities seeking 

reactivation, the LOI would be 

submitted no later than the date the 

owner or operator files with the federal 

or state agency having jurisdiction, but 

in all cases at least one year prior to the 

start of transfer operations. 

With regard to the content of the LOI 

submitted by LNG and LHG facilities, 

the Coast Guard proposes to add a 

requirement that the owner or operator 

provide the name, address, and 

telephone number of the federal, state, 

or local agency having jurisdiction. To 

accommodate the possibility that an 

owner or operator may need to submit 

charts showing waterways longer than 

25 kilometers, we propose adding the 

words ‘‘at least’’ in § 127.007(c)(7). 

In order to harmonize this regulation 

with FERC’s regulations requiring the 

submission of a WSA, and to address 

emergent security concerns that resulted 

from the attacks of September 11, 2001, 

we propose to establish in § 127.007(e) 

the requirement that a WSA be 

submitted by an owner or operator 

seeking to construct or modify an LNG 

or LHG facility. A WSA would not be 

required to reactivate an inactive 

existing LNG or LHG facility, unless the 

owner or operator sought modification 

or expansion of marine transfer 

operations. 

The proposed WSA would consist of 

a Preliminary WSA and a Follow-on 

WSA, described in proposed 

§§ 127.007(f) and (g). The Preliminary 

WSA would be submitted at the same 

time as the LOI. The Follow-on WSA 

would be submitted at least 180 days 

before transfer of LNG or LHG, except in 

the case of an LNG facility that is 

required to submit an application to 

FERC. An LNG facility required to 

submit an application to FERC would 

submit the Follow-on WSA to the Coast 

Guard no later than the date the owner 

or operator files its application with 

FERC. 

The proposed regulations in 33 CFR 

127.007(f) and (g) delineate the content 

of the WSA. According to the proposed 

text, the Preliminary WSA, which is an 

outline of what the fully detailed 

Follow-on WSA will contain, must 

provide an introductory explanation of 

the following: (1) Port characterization; 

(2) characterization of the facility and 

tanker route; (3) risk assessment for 

maritime safety and security; (4) risk 

management strategies; and (5) resource 

needs for maritime safety, security, and 

response. The Follow-on WSA would 

contain a detailed analysis of the topics 

in the Preliminary WSA, and a detailed 

analysis of any other safety or security 

impacts to the port and waterway 

identified by the Captain of the Port 

(COTP) and not otherwise covered in 

the list of subjects discussed in the 

Preliminary WSA. 

The LOR described in 33 CFR 127.009 

represents the Coast Guard’s 

recommendation as to the suitability of 

the waterway for LNG or LHG marine 

traffic. Current regulations provide for 

an LOR issued by the Coast Guard to the 

facility owner or operator and the state 

or local agencies having jurisdiction. In 

order to better reflect the role of federal 

agencies, including FERC’s role in the 

permitting of LNG facilities, the Coast 

Guard proposes to issue the LOR to the 

federal, state, or local government 

agencies having jurisdiction. The Coast 

Guard also proposes to add other 

identified safety and security issues to 

the list of items considered by the COTP 

prior to issuing the LOR. 

Several years may pass between the 

issuance of the LOR and the operation 

of the facility. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard proposes to add a reporting 

requirement designed to keep the WSA 

up-to-date during the period between 

the issuance of the LOR and the start of 

facility operations. The new 

§ 127.007(h) would require owners or 

operators of LNG and LHG facilities that 

have completed the Preliminary and the 

Follow-On portions of a WSA, but not 

begun operation, to annually review 

their WSAs and provide an annual 

written report to the COTP. The owners 

or operators would be required to 

update the WSAs in the event of any 

change in conditions affecting the 

suitability of the waterway for LNG or 

LHG traffic. For example, changes to the 

port environment, LNG or LHG facility, 

or the LNG or LHG tanker route may 

constitute valid reasons when the WSA 

would need to be revised and updated. 

A report also would be required at least 

30 days, but not more than 60 days, 

prior to the start of operations. 

These proposed changes to § 127.007 

would require renumbering of certain 

paragraphs mentioned in § 127.001, 

‘‘Applicability,’’ which references 

paragraphs in § 127.007. The Coast 

Guard proposes to update the paragraph 

references accordingly. 

Finally, to reflect security 

considerations by the Coast Guard after 

the events of September 11, 2001, the 

Coast Guard proposes to add 46 U.S.C. 

Ch. 701 ‘‘Port Security’’ to its authority 

citation for these regulations. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19161 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below, we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

Executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it 

under that Order. 

In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard 

seeks to revise the requirements for 

waterfront facilities handling LNG or 

LHG. For LNG waterfront facilities, this 

rulemaking proposes to align the Coast 

Guard’s submission deadlines with 

those of FERC. For LHG waterfront 

facilities, this rulemaking would align 

the Coast Guard’s submission deadlines 

to match the application timeline for the 

federal, state, or local agency having 

jurisdiction, but in no case less than one 

year prior to the start of construction. 

The Coast Guard believes it is necessary 

to require a WSA for both types of 

facilities and to provide consistency 

with FERC’s regulations regarding LNG 

facilities. This proposed rule would also 

provide consistency for other Coast 

Guard regulations that address both 

LNG and LHG facilities. 

As noted above, the LOI is not a new 

requirement for LNG facilities. The 

WSA also is not a new requirement for 

LNG facilities: Starting in 2005, FERC 

regulations required that LNG facility 

owners and or operators submit the LOI 

earlier than required by the Coast Guard 

regulations, and submit a Preliminary 

and Follow-on WSA to the Coast Guard. 

The proposed procedure for the owner 

or operator to submit a WSA to the 

Coast Guard would not be new for the 

LNG industry because LNG facility 

owners and operators have been 

submitting WSAs to the Coast Guard 

since 2005; guidance on submission is 

provided in NVIC 05–08. As of July 22, 

2008, we have received 18 WSAs for 

LNG waterfront facilities. 

We expect new waterfront LNG 

facilities that become operational in the 

future will not incur additional costs 

over and above existing waterfront LNG 

facilities as a result of this proposed 

rule, because the LNG industry has been 

conducting WSAs as a common 

industry practice. We also expect 

existing LNG facilities will continue to 

operate according to industry standards 

and similarly would not incur 

additional regulatory costs. The 

proposed rule would eliminate industry 

confusion as the Coast Guard aligns its 

regulations with those of FERC. 

As noted above, the submission of an 

LOI is not a new requirement for LHG 

facilities. The submission of a WSA for 

LHG facilities would be a new 

requirement and would apply only to 

new LHG facilities or existing facilities 

that seek to expand or modify 

operations. Only one LHG facility has 

submitted a proposal to the Coast Guard 

to expand operations; this proposal 

currently is under review with 

regulatory authorities pursuant to 

existing regulations. In the future, the 

Coast Guard expects only one to two 

new or existing LHG facilities per year 

may become operational or may seek to 

expand or modify maritime operations. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard 

contacted several industry 

representatives and obtained cost 

estimates for completing a WSA. The 

estimates varied greatly and are a 

function of the waterway environment 

and the geographic location and 

uniqueness of each facility. Cost 

estimates were between $80,000 and 

$1.2 million per WSA. At the margin, 

we believe that these costs would have 

minimal effect on an LHG facility owner 

or operator’s decision to expand 

operations. 

Finally, this proposed rule would 

benefit the economy by ensuring the 

proposed waterway is suitable for the 

safe and secure navigation of LNG or 

LHG vessels and the transfer of these 

cargoes. 

The collection of information burden 

associated with this proposed rule is 

discussed in section D, below. 

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. 

Large corporations own the eight 

existing waterfront LNG facilities and 

we expect this type of ownership to 

continue in the future. This type of 

ownership also exists for the 

approximately 101 LHG facilities 

operating in the U.S. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. If 

you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment to the Docket 

Management Facility at the address 

under ADDRESSES. In your comment, 

explain why you think it qualifies and 

how and to what degree this rule would 

economically affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult with the 

Coast Guard personnel listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this proposed rule. The Coast Guard 

will not retaliate against small entities 

that question or complain about this 

rule or any policy or action of the Coast 

Guard. 

D. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for the 

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 

collections, a description of those who 

must collect the information, and an 

estimate of the total annual burden 

follow. The estimate covers the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing sources of data, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the 

collection. 

We do not expect new collection of 

information burdens would be placed 

on LNG facilities because these facilities 

are currently subject to FERC’s 

regulations. The current reporting 

requirements for LNG facilities are in 

line with industry practices and would 

require only an adjustment to an 

existing OMB-approved collection of 

information (OMB control number 

1625–0049) as LNG facilities update 

their paperwork requirements. 

Similarly, the same collection of 

information for LHG facilities regarding 

WSAs and LOIs would require a 

revision if these facilities intend to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19162 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

expand operations in the future or if 

there is new construction. However, the 

existing collection of information 

requires a revision to include WSAs for 

LHG facilities (WSAs that have been 

submitted to the Coast Guard are from 

LNG facilities only). We request 

comments from the public regarding the 

time it takes to complete a WSA, the 

burden hours associated to perform a 

WSA, and the labor costs. 

This proposed rule modifies one 

existing OMB-approved collection, 

1625–0049 (formerly 2115–0552). The 

request for approval of this Collection of 

Information is available in the docket 

where indicated under the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. 

The summary of the revised collection 

follows: 

Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and 

Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG). 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: The Coast Guard requires 

the submittal of a letter of intent (LOI) 

for LNG and LHG facilities that plan 

new construction or intend to expand 

existing operations and to alert the 

Coast Guard of transfers of LNG or LHG, 

in bulk. In addition, a waterway 

suitability assessment would be 

required for a facility that intends to 

expand maritime operations or a new 

construction, which requires an LOI. 

Need for Information: The LOI is 

needed to alert the cognizant Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) that 

a waterfront facility plans to conduct 

transfers of LNG or LHG, in bulk. It also 

provides a point of contact at the 

facility. Once the Coast Guard receives 

the letter, the COTP can direct the 

necessary enforcement activity to ensure 

that the operator complies with the 

other requirements in 33 CFR part 127. 

The LOI also provides the information 

used by the COTP to determine the 

suitability of the waterway, on which 

the waterfront facility is located, for 

LNG or LHG vessel traffic. Changes to 

the information in the LOI are required 

to be submitted whenever they occur. 

Proposed Use of Information: This 

information is required to ensure COTPs 

learn of the opening or reopening of a 

waterfront facility handling LNG or LHG 

far enough in advance to allocate 

resources, to enforce construction and 

design standards, and to plan 

enforcement strategy. Also, COTPs 

would have the information necessary 

to properly evaluate the suitability of a 

waterway for vessels carrying LNG or 

LHG. 

Description of the Respondents: 

Respondents are the facilities 

themselves. 

Number of Respondents: The existing 

OMB-approved number of respondents 

is 109. There are plans now for future 

facilities to become operational. 

Frequency of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved number of responses is 

3,059 annually. This proposed rule 

would increase that number by 230. The 

total number of responses would be 

3,289. 

Burden of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved burden of response is 

the same for the proposed rule. We have 

maintained our estimates of the 

frequency of response for each item in 

the collection based on industry 

information, and we have added 

information regarding a WSA. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

existing OMB-approved total annual 

burden is 2,838 hours. This proposed 

rule would increase that number by 

5,077 hours, which includes 4,928 

hours for the addition of a WSA to the 

collection of information. All of the 

original items in the collection, 

notwithstanding the WSA, only account 

for a 149-hour increase. The estimated 

total annual burden would be 7,915 

hours. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of 

this proposed rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for its 

review of the collection of information. 

We ask for public comment on the 

proposed collection of information to 

help us determine how useful the 

information is; whether it can help us 

perform our functions better; whether it 

is readily available elsewhere; how 

accurate our estimate of the burden of 

collection is; how valid our methods for 

determining burden are; how we can 

improve the quality, usefulness, and 

clarity of the information; and how we 

can minimize the burden of collection. 

If you submit comments on the 

collection of information, submit them 

both to OMB and to the Docket 

Management Facility where indicated 

under ADDRESSES, by the date under 

DATES. 

You need not respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number from 

OMB. Before the requirements for this 

collection of information become 

effective, we will publish notice in the 

Federal Register of OMB’s decision to 

approve, modify, or disapprove the 

collection. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under that Order and have determined 

that it does not have implications for 

federalism. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

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

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19163 

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. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 0023.1 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

section 2.B.2. Figure 2–1, paragraph 

34(a), of the Instruction and neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. This proposed regulation 

concerns the submission of an LOI and 

a WSA. This involves the gathering of 

data and information that would involve 

no physical change to the environment. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ supporting this 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127 

Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous 

substances, Natural gas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Security measures. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR Part 127 as follows: 

PART 127—WATERFRONT FACILITIES 

HANDLING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS 

AND LIQUEFIED HAZARDOUS GAS 

1. Revise the authority citation for 

part 127 to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 127.001 [Amended] 

2. In § 127.001(c), remove the words 

‘‘Sections 127.007(c), (d), and (e)’’ and 

add in their place the words ‘‘Sections 

127.007(b), (c), and (d)’’. 

3. In § 127.001(e), remove the words 

‘‘Sections 127.007(c), (d), and (e)’’ and 

add in their place the words ‘‘Sections 

127.007(b), (c), and (d)’’. 

4. Revise § 127.007 to read as follows: 

§ 127.007 Letter of intent and waterway 

suitability assessment. 

(a) An owner or operator intending to 

build a new waterfront facility handling 

LNG or LHG, or an owner or operator 

planning new construction to expand or 

modify marine terminal operations in an 

existing waterfront facility handling 

LNG or LHG, 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 one year prior to the start 

of construction. 

(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 one year prior to the 

start of construction. 

(b) An owner or operator intending to 

reactivate an inactive existing 

waterfront 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 one 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 one year prior to the start 

of LHG transfer operations. 

(c) Each LOI must contain— 

(1) The name, address, and telephone 

number of the owner and operator; 

(2) The name, address, and telephone 

number of the federal, state, or local 

agency having jurisdiction; 

(3) The name, address, and telephone 

number of the facility; 

(4) The physical location of the 

facility; 

(5) A description of the facility; 

(6) The LNG or LHG vessels’ 

characteristics and the frequency of 

LNG or LHG shipments to or from the 

facility; and 

(7) Charts showing waterway 

channels and identifying commercial, 

industrial, environmentally sensitive, 

and residential areas in and adjacent to 

the waterway used by the LNG or LHG 

vessels en route to the facility, within at 

least 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) of the 

facility. 

(d) The owner or operator who 

submits an LOI under paragraphs (a) or 

(b) must notify the COTP in writing 

within 15 days of any of the following: 

(1) There is any change in the 

information submitted under paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(7) of this section; or 

(2) No LNG or LHG transfer 

operations are scheduled within the 

next 12 months. 

(e) A facility owner or operator who 

intends to build a new waterfront LNG 

or LHG facility, or a facility owner or 

operator who plans new construction on 

an existing waterfront LNG or LHG 

facility, must file 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. 

(f) The Preliminary WSA must: 

(1) Be submitted to the COTP with the 

LOI; and 

(2) Provide an initial explanation of 

the following: 

(i) Port characterization; 

(ii) Characterization of the LNG or 

LHG facility and LNG or LHG tanker 

route; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Risk assessment for maritime 

safety and security; 

(iv) Risk management strategies; and 

(v) Resource needs for maritime 

safety, security, and response. 

(g) The Follow-on WSA must: 

(1) Be submitted to the COTP as 

follows: 

(i) The owner or operator of an LNG 

facility must submit the Follow-on WSA 

to the COTP no later than the date the 

owner or operator files its application 

with FERC pursuant to 18 CFR parts 153 

or 157, or if no application to FERC is 

required, at least 180 days before the 

owner or operator begins transferring 

LNG. 

(ii) The owner or operator of an LHG 

facility must submit the Follow-on WSA 

to the COTP in all cases at least 180 

days before the owner or operator begins 

transferring LHG. 

(2) Contain a detailed analysis of the 

elements listed in §§ 127.009(d) and (e) 

of this part below. 

(h) Until the facility begins operation, 

owners or operators must: 

(1) Annually review their WSAs and 

submit a report to the COTP as to 

whether changes are required. The 

deadline for the required annual report 

should coincide with the date of the 

COTP’s letter of recommendation, 

which indicates review and validation 

of the Follow-on WSA has been 

completed. 

(2) In the event that revisions to the 

WSA are needed, report to the COTP the 

details of the necessary revisions, along 

with a timeline for completion. 

(3) Update the WSA if there are any 

changes in conditions, such as changes 

to the port environment, the LNG or 

LHG facility, or the tanker route, that 

would affect the suitability of the 

waterway for LNG or LHG traffic. 

(4) Submit a final report to the COTP 

at least 30 days, but not more than 60 

days, prior to the start of operations. 

5. Revise § 127.009 to read as follows: 

§ 127.009 Letter of recommendation. 

After the COTP receives the letter of 

intent under § 127.007(a) or (b), the 

COTP issues a letter of recommendation 

to the federal, state, or local government 

agencies having jurisdiction, as to the 

suitability of the waterway for LNG or 

LHG marine traffic, based on the— 

(a) Information submitted under 

§ 127.007; 

(b) Density and character of marine 

traffic in the waterway; 

(c) Locks, bridges, or other man-made 

obstructions in the waterway; 

(d) Following factors adjacent to the 

facility such as: 

(1) Depths of the water; 

(2) Tidal range; 

(3) Protection from high seas; 

(4) Natural hazards, including reefs, 

rocks, and sandbars; 

(5) Underwater pipelines and cables; 

(6) Distance of berthed vessel from the 

channel and the width of the channel; 

and 

(e) Other safety and security issues 

identified. 

Dated: April 22, 2009. 

Howard L. Hime, 

Acting Director of Commercial Regulations 

and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. E9–9639 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 21 

RIN 2900–AN31 

Vocational Rehabilitation and 

Employment Program—SelfEmployment 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend the vocational rehabilitation and 

employment regulations of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

concerning self-employment for 

individuals with qualifying disabilities. 

We are proposing changes that are 

intended to conform VA’s regulations 

for self-employment programs for 

veterans, and for servicemembers 

awaiting discharge, to statutory 

provisions, including provisions 

limiting eligibility for certain supplies, 

equipment, stock, and license fees to 

individuals with the most severe 

service-connected disabilities. We are 

also proposing related changes in VA’s 

regulations affecting eligibility for such 

assistance for certain veterans’ children 

with birth defects in self-employment 

programs. In addition, we propose to 

amend our regulations regarding 

authority for approval of selfemployment plans to make certain 

requirements less restrictive and less 

burdensome, remove a vague and overly 

broad requirement, make changes to 

reflect longstanding VA policy, and 

make nonsubstantive clarifying changes 

in our regulations affecting selfemployment programs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to the Director, Regulations 

Management (02REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., 

NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 

20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AN31—Vocational Rehabilitation and 

Employment Program—SelfEmployment.’’ Copies of comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection in the Office of Regulation 

Policy and Management, Room 1063B, 

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday (except 

holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 

(not a toll-free number) for an 

appointment. In addition, during the 

comment period, comments may be 

viewed online through the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) at 

www.Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alvin Bauman, Senior Policy Analyst, 

Vocational Rehabilitation and 

Employment Service (28), Veterans 

Benefits Administration, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– 

9613 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

propose to amend VA’s regulations 

concerning self-employment in 38 CFR 

part 21 that are applicable to benefits 

and services under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31, 

Training and Rehabilitation for Veterans 

with Service-Connected Disabilities, 

and 38 U.S.C. chapter 18, Benefits for 

Children of Vietnam Veterans and 

Certain Other Veterans. 

The Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1996, 

Public Law 104–275 (enacted October 9, 

1996), amended 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(12) 

regarding the special assistance and 

supplies that VA can provide for 

individuals pursuing self-employment 

programs. Prior to the enactment of 

Public Law 104–275, only ‘‘the most 

severely disabled’’ individuals who 

required self-employment were, under 

38 CFR 21.258, entitled to the special 

supplies, equipment, stock, and license 

fees described in 38 CFR 21.214(e). 

Public Law 104–275 amended 38 U.S.C. 

3104(a)(12) by restricting the provision 

of those special supplies, equipment, 

stock, and license fees to individuals 

‘‘with the most severe service-connected 

disabilities who require homebound 

training or self employment.’’ We plan 

to address issues concerning training in 

the home (also known as homebound 

training) under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(12) in 

a future rulemaking. This rulemaking, 

like current § 21.258, concerns 

individuals who require selfemployment, some of whom may also 

require homebound training. This 

proposed rule includes (in § 21.257 

rather than current § 21.258) criteria 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS