29420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to be posted and available for 

downloading from the FERC Web site 

(http://www.ferc.gov). One copy of the 

report must be retained by the 

respondent in its files. 

(4) Intrastate pipelines filing Form No. 

549D are no longer required to file Form 

No. 549—Intrastate Pipeline Annual 

Transportation Report after their March 

31, 2011 filing. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–12614 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Coast 

Guard revises the requirements for 

waterfront facilities handling liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) and liquefied 

hazardous gas (LHG). The revisions 

bring the regulations up to date with 

industry practices and Coast Guard 

policy implemented due to increased 

emphasis on security since the events of 

September 11, 2001. These revisions 

harmonize the Coast Guard’s regulations 

for LNG with those established by the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), the agency with exclusive 

authority to approve or deny an 

application for the siting, construction, 

expansion, or operation of an LNG 

facility located onshore or within State 

waters. This rulemaking does not affect 

LNG deepwater ports. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

25, 2010. To the extent this rulemaking 

affects the collection of information in 

33 CFR 127.007, we will not enforce the 

revised collection requirements until 

the collection is approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

When OMB approves, we will publish 

notification in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2007–27022 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2007–27022 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Commander Patrick Clark, 

CG–5222, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1410, e-mail 

Patrick.W.Clark@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Background 

A. Basis and Purpose of the Final Rule 

B. Discussion of FERC Regulations With 

Regard to LNG 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

A. General Comments 

B. Comments on the Letter of Intent 

C. Comments on Waterway Safety, and the 

Waterway Suitability Assessment 

D. Comments on Frequency of Shipments 

E. Comments on Evaluating the Density 

and Character of Marine Traffic 

F. Comments on the Letter of 

Recommendation 

G. Comments on Timely Issuance of the 

Letter of Recommendation 

H. Comments on the Differences Between 

LNG and LHG 

I. Other Changes 

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. 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 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection 

Circular 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WSA Waterway Suitability Assessment 

II. Regulatory History 

On April 28, 2009, we published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking entitled ‘‘Revision 

of LNG and LHG Waterfront Facility 

General Requirements’’ (74 FR 19159). 

We received four letters commenting on 

the proposed rule, containing a total of 

38 comments. No public meeting was 

requested and none was held. 

III. Background 

A. Basis and Purpose of the Final Rule 

Over the last decade, the worldwide 

production and transportation of 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) has 

increased substantially. 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. Should domestic 

gas production not meet this demand, 

increased marine LNG imports may be 

needed to help resolve this likely 

shortfall. Currently, there are nine 

waterfront LNG facilities in the United 

States: eight 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 facilities 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 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 marine transfer area of 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 input, in a Letter of 

Recommendation (LOR), to an agency 

having jurisdiction for siting, 

construction, and operation. The LOR 

serves as the Coast Guard’s 

recommendation to the jurisdictional 

agency as to the suitability of the 

waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic 

on the waterway associated with the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29421 

proposed facility or modification to an 

existing facility. 

In the case of LNG waterfront 

facilities regulated by FERC, the LOI has 

been augmented by a Waterway 

Suitability Assessment (WSA). The 

WSA is an applicant-prepared riskbased assessment designed to document 

and address all safety and security 

concerns related to the movement of 

LNG for a particular U.S. port or 

waterway. As discussed below, since 

2005, FERC regulations have required 

prospective applicants for FERC 

authorization to site, construct, and 

operate LNG facilities to submit WSAs 

to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard’s 

Office of Operating and Environmental 

Standards (CG–5222) maintains 

guidance on preparation and 

submission of WSAs to the Coast Guard. 

Contact details are located under the 

section heading FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

In April 2009, the Coast Guard 

proposed a rule that 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, the Coast Guard proposed to 

establish the WSA requirement for both 

LNG and LHG facilities because of the 

similarities between those cargoes. 

B. Discussion of FERC Regulations With 

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. The Coast Guard 

provided this information in the NPRM; 

we repeat it here for the convenience of 

the reader. 

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 facility owners and operators to 

submit WSAs to the Coast Guard as part 

of the FERC pre-filing process. Although 

FERC regulations, not Coast Guard 

regulations, require the WSA, the Coast 

Guard considers the applicant’s WSA in 

developing its LOR. 

FERC requires applicants seeking 

FERC’s authorization to site, construct, 

and operate new LNG facilities, and 

some applicants seeking authority to 

make modifications to an existing or 

approved LNG facility, to make an 

initial filing to FERC and, concurrently, 

submit an 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 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 

applicant must satisfy several 

requirements, including the requirement 

in 18 CFR 157.21(f)(13) that an 

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 (for 

LNG terminal facilities and 

modifications thereto, if appropriate). 

The applicant shall certify that the U.S. 

Coast Guard has indicated that a 

Follow-On WSA is not required, if 

appropriate.’’ 

The applicant must wait at least 180 

days after the commencement of the 

FERC pre-filing process before starting 

the FERC filing process. Thus, the FERC 

regulations result in the LOI being 

submitted at least 180 days before the 

applicant files an application for 

authorization to construct the facility 

with FERC, even though the Coast 

Guard regulations for new and modified 

facilities only require the LOI to be 

submitted at least 60 days before 

construction begins. 

IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

The Coast Guard received letters from 

four commenters, containing a total of 

38 comments on the NPRM. All 

comments received are available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking, 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. 

Below, we respond to all comments 

received, and describe changes made in 

response to specific comments. 

A. General Comments 

The Coast Guard received multiple 

comments expressing support for the 

proposed rule. In general, comments 

supported clarification of the existing 

regulatory regime for LNG and LHG 

marine transfer facilities. Specifically, 

the Coast Guard received one comment 

expressing general support for the 

proposed rule, one comment urging the 

Coast Guard to implement the proposed 

revisions of its regulations, one 

comment indicating the commenter 

‘‘strongly supports’’ the Coast Guard’s 

efforts to reconcile its regulations with 

FERC regulations, and one comment 

acknowledging the ‘‘importance of, and 

the Coast Guard’s desire for, a 

coordinated, clearly-defined review 

process’’ resulting in a recommendation 

to the permitting authority. Additional 

supportive comments are discussed 

below. The Coast Guard appreciates 

these supportive comments. 

Some commenters made reference to 

the role the LOI, WSA, and LOR may 

play in other agencies’ environmental 

review of LNG or LHG projects. The 

Coast Guard understands that a 

permitting agency may use a variety of 

documents, including the LOI, WSA, or 

LOR, to aid in the development of its 

environmental analysis. These 

documents may contain environmental 

data: for example, § 127.007 requires the 

LOI to include charts identifying 

environmentally sensitive areas. 

Nonetheless, maritime safety and 

security concerns, rather than 

environmental review, are the primary 

drivers in creation of the LOI, WSA, and 

LOR, and the Coast Guard encourages 

Federal, State, and local agencies to 

view these documents in that context. 

Finally, one commenter noted that the 

NPRM did not expressly state that the 

revised regulations would become 

effective on a prospective basis. For 

clarity, the Coast Guard confirms that 

the revised regulations will become 

effective upon the date indicated in the 

DATES section above. 

B. Comments on the Letter of Intent 

Two commenters made comments 

regarding § 127.007(a), which discusses 

LOIs. 

First, one commenter noted slightly 

different language between 

§§ 127.007(a) and (e), in that the 

proposed § 127.007(a) required an LOI 

for construction expanding or modifying 

terminal (facility) operations, while 

§ 127.007(e) required a WSA for any 

new construction. Although the Coast 

Guard did not intend any substantive 

difference in the wording of these two 

provisions, we agree that the differing 

language could result in confusion. The 

commenter recommended that 

§ 127.007(e) read the same as 

§ 127.007(a), to make this point clearer. 

The Coast Guard agrees that the two 

provisions should be consistent and has 

revised the proposed §§ 127.007(a) and 

(e) for clarity and consistency. The text 

of the final rule reflects this change. 

Second, the same commenter 

recommended that § 127.007(a) be 

changed to trigger the LOI requirement 

when construction ‘‘would change the 

conditions reported in the last WSA’’ or, 

in the alternative, when the 

construction ‘‘also requires filing a 

permit request with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC).’’ 

Although the Coast Guard finds these 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
29422 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

recommendations too narrow, it concurs 

with the broader point that the LOI 

requirement is triggered when an 

applicant files with a permitting agency 

having jurisdiction. Section 127.007(a) 

applies to facilities not regulated by 

FERC—for example, LHG facilities—and 

facilities that do not yet have a WSA. 

For that reason, the Coast Guard 

declines to adopt the commenter’s 

recommendations as written. As stated 

in the proposed regulatory text, 

however, the deadline for submitting 

the LOI is based on the owner or 

operator’s decision to file with the 

permitting agency having jurisdiction. 

The Coast Guard does not require an 

LOI if the owner or operator does not 

file with a permitting agency having 

jurisdiction. In the unlikely event that 

no permitting agency has jurisdiction or 

no filing is required, the Coast Guard 

will not require an LOI or issue an LOR; 

however, the COTP retains his or her 

authority to ensure the maritime safety 

and security of the waterway. 

The commenter noted that § 127.007 

would require an LOI 1 year prior to the 

terminal (facility) improving its 

moorings by increasing hook or bollard 

capacity, modifying a gangway to 

improve access, or adding mooring 

monitoring systems. The Coast Guard 

concurs with this characterization if 

such expansion or modification of the 

marine transfer area of the facility 

requires the owner or operator to file 

with the permitting agency having 

jurisdiction over the facility and the 

expansion or modification results in an 

increase in the size and/or frequency of 

the LNG or LHG marine traffic on the 

waterway associated with the facility. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard has 

modified the text of §§ 127.007(a) and 

(e) to specify that an LOI is required for 

construction, expansion, or 

modification that would increase the 

size and/or frequency of the LNG or 

LHG marine traffic on the waterway 

associated with the proposed facility or 

modification to an existing facility. 

The commenter implied that it is 

undesirable to require an LOI 1 year 

prior to the type of improvements listed. 

However, such advance notice is 

necessary to the Coast Guard’s maritime 

safety and security missions. If an 

owner or operator submits an LOI for a 

modification that does not require 1 

year to review, the Coast Guard expects 

to issue the LOR within a shorter 

timeframe. 

Separately, a different commenter 

stated that requiring an LOI 1 year prior 

to construction is not a FERC 

requirement and therefore ‘‘appears 

inconsistent with the goals of 

harmonizing’’ and aligning Coast Guard 

regulations with FERC regulations. 

Aligning Coast Guard regulations with 

FERC regulations is one goal of this 

rulemaking; the 1-year period between 

LOI and construction is designed to 

work with the FERC pre-filing process 

in which the LOI must be submitted at 

least 180 days before the applicant files 

its application for authorization to 

construct the facility with FERC. 

However, Coast Guard regulations must 

be broader and encompass more 

situations than FERC’s regulations, in 

part because they apply to facilities 

FERC does not regulate. The Coast 

Guard requires the LOI at least 1 year 

prior to construction in order to allow 

adequate time for risk assessment. 

Finally, to improve clarity, the Coast 

Guard added language to § 127.007(c)(2) 

specifying that the LOI must include the 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the Federal, State, or local agency 

having jurisdiction ‘‘for siting, 

construction, and operation.’’ 

C. Comments on Waterway Safety, and 

the Waterway Suitability Assessment 

Two commenters commented on 

issues involving the WSA. 

One commenter suggested 

§ 127.007(g) be changed to require that 

WSAs contain a detailed analysis of the 

elements listed in §§ 127.007(f)(2) and 

127.009(e) of this part. The commenter 

expressed concern that the proposed 

regulation required the Follow-on WSA 

to contain a detailed analysis of the 

elements the Coast Guard will consider 

in issuing the LOR but, as proposed, did 

not require a detailed analysis of the 

elements listed in the Preliminary WSA. 

The commenter correctly pointed out 

that this omission conflicted with our 

explanation of the proposed rule in the 

preamble to the NPRM, in which we 

indicated that 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.’’ The Coast Guard has modified 

the text of the final rule to include 

§ 127.007(f)(2) as well as §§ 127.009(d) 

and (e). 

A different commenter made general 

comments about the waterway 

suitability assessment process. This 

commenter said risk to the waterway 

must be adequately assessed, and that 

‘‘leaving such an important review as 

voluntary’’ would be inadequate. The 

Coast Guard concurs that assessment of 

the waterway is vital. The owner or 

operator’s WSA and the Coast Guard’s 

review of that document are key 

elements of the risk management 

process. Coast Guard review ensures 

that the owner or operator has 

adequately assessed potential risks 

associated with vessel transit in the 

context of waterway safety and security 

as part of the Coast Guard’s cooperation 

with the permitting agency. Because of 

the importance of this process, FERC 

regulations have made WSAs mandatory 

since 2005 for LNG facilities located 

onshore and in State waters. This rule 

will align Coast Guard regulations with 

existing FERC regulations for the 

mandatory assessment of the waterway, 

and will extend waterway suitability 

assessment measures to LHG facilities as 

well. 

Additionally, the commenter sought 

‘‘any data we can get from a Waterway 

Suitability Assessment’’ and, 

specifically, the ‘‘proponent’s chart 

identifying what they consider 

environmentally sensitive.’’ The Coast 

Guard strives to fully involve all portlevel stakeholders in the Coast Guard’s 

review of an applicant’s WSA. When 

feasible, those stakeholders include 

those local and State entities with 

jurisdiction over a proposed facility. 

This rulemaking does not alter that 

process. Similarly, this rulemaking does 

not alter the availability of data 

submitted to the Coast Guard in the 

owner or operator’s WSA. 

D. Comments on Frequency of 

Shipments 

One commenter submitted comments 

regarding the requirement that each LOI 

contain information on the frequency of 

LNG or LHG shipments to or from the 

facility. Specifically, the commenter 

described the requirement as 

‘‘unprecedented in regulation’’ and 

‘‘impossible to reliably assess.’’ The 

commenter stated that the ‘‘frequency 

and number of vessels has no bearing 

on’’ waterway suitability, and 

recommended rewording § 127.007(c)(6) 

to exclude mention of the frequency of 

shipments. The Coast Guard disagrees 

with these comments and 

recommendation. 

The requirement that the LOI contain 

‘‘the frequency of LNG shipments to or 

from the facility’’ was present in the 

1988 final rule that created § 127.007, 

and has remained in place since that 

date (53 FR 3370). When the 

requirement was extended to LHG in 

1995, the preamble to that final rule, 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 3, 1995, stated that the ‘‘purpose 

of the ‘Letter of Intent’ is to give the 

[Captain of the Port] general notice of 

both the type and estimated number of 

LHG vessels that may call at the facility 

and the size of shipments. This 

information can easily be obtained from 

the facility-design specifications’’ (60 FR 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29423 

39788). Every LOI provided by an owner 

or operator to the Coast Guard has 

included information on the frequency 

of shipments. With the exception of renumbering the paragraph and reordering the terms ‘‘LNG’’ and ‘‘LHG,’’ 

the NPRM did not propose changes to 

this requirement, and the Coast Guard 

intends no change to the current 

methods of compliance. 

For all these reasons, the Coast Guard 

does not believe that the frequency of 

shipments is impossible to assess. As 

discussed in more detail below, the 

Coast Guard’s mission of public 

stewardship requires that we consider 

activity in the waterway, and the impact 

of LNG and LHG vessel traffic, when 

evaluating waterway suitability. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard believes it 

necessary to include this information in 

the LOI. 

E. Comments on Evaluating the Density 

and Character of Marine Traffic 

One commenter submitted several 

comments on whether the Coast Guard 

should consider the density and 

character of marine traffic in a waterway 

when evaluating the suitability of the 

waterway for LNG or LHG vessel transit. 

Specifically, the commenter 

recommended deleting § 127.009(b) 

because the commenter feels that 

considering other marine traffic favors 

existing waterway uses to the detriment 

of new or expanding waterway uses not 

subject to a waterway suitability 

assessment requirement, and ‘‘puts the 

Coast Guard in a position of 

determining which waterway user 

should have usage rights and which 

should not.’’ 

Contrary to the commenter’s 

statement that these are ‘‘Commerce 

issues beyond the intended purpose of 

the Coast Guard,’’ the Coast Guard 

engages daily in managing the safe and 

secure movement of vessels, particularly 

vessels in interstate commerce, and in 

balancing the needs of many different 

waterway users. To clarify, however, the 

LOR does not ‘‘determine which 

waterway user should have usage 

rights’’; rather, the LOR is the Coast 

Guard’s recommendation to the 

jurisdictional agency as to the suitability 

of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine 

traffic. 

The commenter notes that port 

management plans and safety and 

security zones are tools the Coast Guard 

uses to manage competing waterway 

priorities; other tools include notices of 

arrival and departure, regulated 

navigation areas, navigational ‘‘rules of 

the road,’’ and COTP orders. To take the 

latter example, under the authority of 

the Ports and Waterway Safety Act or 

the Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002, the Coast Guard COTP may 

order any vessel, whether a recreational 

craft or an LNG vessel, to make way for 

another when necessary for waterway 

safety and security. Such plans, zones, 

and orders take place pursuant to their 

own administrative processes, separate 

from the waterway suitability 

assessment or LOR. The LOR, by 

contrast, serves as the Coast Guard’s 

recommendation to the agency having 

jurisdiction over siting, construction, 

and/or operation on whether the Coast 

Guard considers the waterway 

associated with a proposed facility or 

modification to an existing facility 

suitable for the LNG or LHG marine 

traffic. Additionally, the LOR often 

contains information helpful to the 

jurisdictional agencies for improving 

safety and security of the waterway for 

LNG or LHG marine traffic. 

Input based solely on whether the 

vessel could physically transit the 

waterway would not serve the Coast 

Guard’s missions or the needs of the 

agencies to which the LOR is issued, 

and would needlessly withhold the 

Coast Guard’s expertise in waterway 

management. The Coast Guard’s 

evaluation of waterway suitability 

necessarily includes evaluation of 

maritime safety and security risks posed 

by and to other vessels. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard declines the commenter’s 

recommendation that we delete 

§ 127.009(b). 

F. Comments on the Letter of 

Recommendation 

First, to improve clarity, the Coast 

Guard added language to § 127.009 

specifying that the LOR is issued to the 

Federal, State, or local agency having 

jurisdiction ‘‘for siting, construction, 

and operation.’’ 

In addition, one commenter made 

comments regarding the LOR. 

Specifically, the commenter urged the 

Coast Guard to ‘‘provide for 

contemporaneous notice’’ of the LOR to 

the owner or operator. The Coast Guard 

had intended that owners or operators 

receive a copy of the LOR, and we agree 

that the regulation should reflect that 

practice. Accordingly, the final rule 

specifies that the owner or operator will 

receive a copy of the LOR at the same 

time the Coast Guard sends the LOR to 

the government agency having 

jurisdiction for siting, construction, and 

operation. 

The same commenter ‘‘believes that 

the applicant should have an 

opportunity to seek clarification or 

reconsideration of provisions contained 

in the LOR at the time of its issuance to 

other jurisdictional agencies.’’ 

Recommendations expressed in the LOR 

represent the Coast Guard’s professional 

input and are provided in the context of 

the Federal, State, or local jurisdictional 

agency’s proceedings, which provide for 

participation and public comments. 

Therefore, additional information may 

be submitted by the owner or operator, 

the public, or the Coast Guard, to the 

Federal, State, or local agency with 

jurisdiction. To the extent the comment 

addresses a process for clarifying or 

reconsidering the recommendation 

contained in a particular LOR, such a 

process is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. This rule aligns FERC and 

Coast Guard regulations with regard to 

the timing and content of submissions 

under 33 CFR 127.007, and clarifies the 

recipients of the LOR under § 127.009. 

G. Comments on Timely Issuance of the 

Letter of Recommendation 

One commenter recommended 

modifying § 127.009 to include a 

timeline for Coast Guard review of the 

WSA and issuance of the LOR. The 

Coast Guard shares the commenter’s 

desire for timely review of LOIs and 

WSAs, and strives to issue LORs 

promptly. Current policy states that the 

COTP should issue the LOR before the 

permitting agency completes its 

environmental review. However, the 

Coast Guard does not intend to restrict 

the COTP in his or her review, 

especially given the possibility of 

changing circumstances, and does not 

intend to establish a right to a response 

in a specified time. 

H. Comments on the Differences 

Between LNG and LHG 

One commenter submitted comments 

on the differences between LNG and 

LHG. The commenter did not object to 

applying similar regulatory 

requirements to both LNG and LHG 

vessels, but asked the Coast Guard to 

‘‘recognize and maintain the important 

factual distinctions between LNG and 

LHG.’’ Specifically, the commenter 

urged that ‘‘regulatory requirements that 

may be appropriate to the regulation of 

LHG may not be appropriate or 

necessary for transfer operations 

concerning LNG.’’ 

The Coast Guard understands the 

commenter’s concern. We recognize that 

the chemical properties of LNG differ 

from those of LHG, and that the risk of 

transporting these materials does vary. 

We also acknowledge, as we have done 

in the past, the well-documented safety 

record associated with LNG vessel 

transport. At this time, the Coast Guard 

finds no reason to apply different 

waterway suitability methodologies to 

these materials. However, the results of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
29424 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a waterway suitability assessment are 

always specific to the commodity and 

waterway being evaluated. 

I. Other Changes 

33 CFR 127.005 defines a facility as 

‘‘either a waterfront facility handling 

LHG or a waterfront facility handling 

LNG.’’ These terms are clearly defined to 

mean any structure capable of being 

used to transfer LNG or LHG, in bulk, 

to or from a vessel. For consistency, and 

to avoid redundancy, the Coast Guard 

has modified the text of the final rule to 

use the term ‘‘facility’’ instead of 

‘‘waterfront facility.’’ 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this 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 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. 

Public comments on the NPRM are 

summarized in Part IV of this 

publication. We received no public 

comments that would alter our 

assessment of the impacts discussed in 

the NPRM. 

In this rule, the Coast Guard seeks to 

revise the requirements for waterfront 

facilities handling LNG or LHG. For 

LNG waterfront facilities, this 

rulemaking aligns the Coast Guard’s 

submission deadlines with those of 

FERC. This rulemaking aligns the Coast 

Guard’s submission deadlines for LHG 

waterfront facilities with those of LNG 

waterfront facilities. The Coast Guard 

believes it is necessary to require a WSA 

for both types of facilities and to 

provide consistency with FERC 

regulations regarding LNG facilities. 

This rule also provides consistency for 

other Coast Guard regulations that 

address both LNG and LHG facilities. 

As noted above, the LOI and WSA are 

not new requirements 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 procedure 

for the owner or operator to submit a 

WSA to the Coast Guard is not new for 

the LNG industry because LNG facility 

owners and operators have been 

submitting WSAs to the Coast Guard 

since 2005. As of December 2009, we 

have received 19 WSAs for LNG 

waterfront facilities with only one 

submittal since July 2008. 

We expect that 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 rule, because 

the LNG industry has been conducting 

WSAs as a common industry practice. 

We also expect existing LNG facilities to 

continue to operate according to 

industry standards and similarly to not 

incur additional regulatory costs. The 

rule eliminates 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. However, the submission of a 

WSA for LHG facilities is a new 

requirement, but will apply only to new 

LHG facilities or existing facilities that 

seek to expand or modify operations 

that result in an increase in the size and/ 

or frequency of LHG marine traffic on 

the waterway associated with a 

proposed facility or modification to an 

existing facility. 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. We believe that 

these costs will have minimal effect on 

an LHG facility owner or operator’s 

decision to expand operations. 

Finally, this rule benefits 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 rule is discussed in 

section V.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. 

In the NPRM, we certified under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We received no public 

comments that would alter our 

certification in the NPRM. We have 

found no additional data or information 

that would change our findings in the 

NPRM. 

Large corporations own the nine 

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 159 LHG facilities 

operating in the United States. 

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 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could 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 will 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29425 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing sources of data, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection. 

This rule modifies one existing OMBapproved collection, 1625–0049. The 

summary of the revised collection 

follows: 

Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and 

Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG). 

OMB Control No.: 1625–0049. 

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 to alert the Coast 

Guard of transfers of LNG or LHG, in 

bulk. In addition, a waterway suitability 

assessment will be required for a facility 

that intends new construction, 

expansion or modification of an existing 

facility, which results in an increase in 

the size and/or frequency of LNG or 

LHG marine traffic on the associated 

waterway. 

Need for Information: The LOI is 

needed to alert the cognizant Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) that 

a 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 all of the 

requirements in 33 CFR part 127. The 

LOI also provides some of the 

information used by the COTP to 

determine the suitability of the 

waterway associated with a proposed 

facility or modification to an existing 

facility for LNG or LHG marine traffic. 

Changes to the information in the LOI 

are required to be submitted whenever 

they occur. 

Use of Information: This information 

is required to ensure COTPs learn of the 

opening or reopening of a facility 

handling LNG or LHG far enough in 

advance to allocate resources and to 

plan enforcement strategies. COTPs will 

also 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 107. Based on our data, this rule will 

increase that number by 61 respondents 

to a total of 168 respondents. 

Frequency of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved number of responses is 

3,059 annually. This rule will increase 

that number by 1,936. The total number 

of responses will be 4,995. 

Burden of Response: The existing 

OMB-approved burden of response is 

the same for the 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 rule will 

increase that number by 6,666 hours, 

which includes 4,928 hours for the 

addition of a WSA to the collection of 

information, and 1,738 hours to account 

for a change in the number of 

respondents. The estimated total annual 

burden will be 9,504 hours. 

As required by the Paperwork 

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

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

this rule to OMB for its review of the 

collection of information. OMB has not 

yet completed its review of this 

collection. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

will not enforce the revisions this rule 

makes to information collection 

requirements at 33 CFR 127.007 until 

the collection is approved by OMB. We 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register informing the public of OMB’s 

decision to approve, modify, or 

disapprove the collection. 

You are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

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 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 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any 1 year. Though 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 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

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 does 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. 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
29426 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 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 concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2– 

1, paragraph (34)(a) of the Instruction. 

This rule involves regulations which are 

editorial or procedural, such as those 

updating addresses or establishing 

application procedures. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

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 amends 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. Amend § 127.001: 

■ A. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

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

and adding in their place the words 

‘‘Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d)’’. 

■ B. In paragraph (e), by removing the 

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

and adding in their place the words 

‘‘Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d)’’. 

■ 3. 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 facility handling LNG or 

LHG, or an owner or operator planning 

new construction to expand or modify 

marine terminal operations in an 

existing facility handling LNG or LHG, 

where the construction, expansion, or 

modification would result in an increase 

in the size and/or frequency of LNG or 

LHG marine traffic on the waterway 

associated with a proposed facility or 

modification to an existing 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. 

(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 existing 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. 

(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 for siting, 

construction, and operation; 

(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) 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 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) An owner or operator intending to 

build a new LNG or LHG facility, or an 

owner or operator planning new 

construction to expand or modify 

marine terminal operations in an 

existing facility handling LNG or LHG, 

where the construction, expansion, or 

modification would result in an increase 

in the size and/or frequency of LNG or 

LHG marine traffic on the waterway 

associated with a proposed facility or 

modification to an existing 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. 

(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; 

(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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29427 

(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 §§ 127.007(f)(2), 

127.009(d), and 127.009(e) of this part. 

(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. 

■ 4. 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 as to the suitability of 

the waterway for LNG or LHG marine 

traffic 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— 

(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) 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. 

F. J. Sturm, 

Acting Director of Commercial Regulations 

and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12680 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–1132] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; AVI May Fireworks 

Display, Laughlin, NV 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone, on the 

navigable waters of the lower Colorado 

River, Laughlin, NV, in support of a 

fireworks display near the AVI Resort 

and Casino. This safety zone is 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other vessels 

and users of the waterway. Persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring 

within this safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, or 

his designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. 

to 9:45 p.m. on May 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2009–1132 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2009–1132 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Corey 

McDonald, Waterways Management, 

Coast Guard; telephone 619–278–7262, 

e-mail Corey.R.McDonald@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On March 2, 2010 we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Safety Zone; AVI May 

Fireworks Display; Laughlin, Nevada, 

NV in the Federal Register (75 FR 

9370). We received 0 comments on the 

proposed rule. No public meeting was 

requested, and none was held. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Due to the need for immediate 

action, the restriction of vessel traffic is 

necessary to protect life, property and 

the environment; therefore, a 30-day 

notice is impracticable. Delaying the 

effective date would be contrary to the 

safety zone’s intended objectives of 

protecting persons and vessels involved 

in the event, and enhancing public and 

maritime safety. 

Basis and Purpose 

The AVI Resort and Casino is 

sponsoring the AVI May fireworks 

display, which is to be held at the AVI 

Resort and Casino on the Lower 

Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada. A 

temporary safety zone is necessary to 

provide for the safety of the show’s 

crew, spectators, participants of the 

event, participating vessels, and other 

vessels and users of the waterway. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

There were no comments submitted 

and no changes were made to the 

regulation. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary safety zone on the navigable 

waters of the Lower Colorado River, 

Laughlin, NV in support of the AVI May 

fireworks display adjacent to the AVI 

Resort and Casino on the Lower 

Colorado River, Laughlin, NV. The 

safety zone will be effective from 8 p.m. 

to 9:45 a.m. on May 30, 2010. The safety 

zone is set as an 800 foot radius around 

the firing site in approximate position: 

35°00.45′ N, 114°38.18′ W. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this 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. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This 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. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. This determination is based on 

the size and location of the safety zone. 

While vessels will not be allowed to 

transit through the designated safety 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES