Document ID: USCG-2019-0444-0007
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Rule
Title: Operational Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards
Posted Date: 2022-02-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5660-5692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01888]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 127

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0444]
RIN 1625-AC52

Operational Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling 
Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard issues this final rule amending its 
regulations concerning waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural 
gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The final rule makes the 
following three changes. First, the final rule revises the Coast 
Guard's existing regulations to allow waterfront facilities handling 
LNG as fuel to conduct an operational risk assessment instead of a 
waterway suitability assessment (WSA) without first obtaining Captain 
of the Port (COTP) approval. Second, the final rule revises existing 
regulations to update incorporated technical standards to reflect the 
most recent published editions. These updated industry standards only 
apply to waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG that are 
constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after the 
implementation date of the final rule. Third, for waterfront facilities 
handling LNG that must comply with the WSA requirements, the final rule 
requires these facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard 
regarding the nation of registry for vessels transporting natural gas 
that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the facilities, and the 
nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board those 
vessels.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 4, 2022. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register on March 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being 
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0444 in the search box and click

[[Page 5661]]

``Search.'' Next, in the Document Type column, select ``Supporting & 
Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager, Coast Guard, Vessel and 
Facility Operating Standards Division, Commandant (CG-OES-2); telephone 
202-372-1413, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary
III. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Discussion of the Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

API American Petroleum Institute
ASME The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM ASTM International
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-OES Coast Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards
COI Collection of information
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DNV Det Norske Veritas
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FR Federal Register
GSA General Services Administration
HAZID Hazard Identification
IA Interagency Agreement
IBR Incorporated by reference
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LHG Liquefied hazardous gas
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LOI Letter of Intent
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OFR Office of the Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORA Operational risk assessment
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
SBA Small Business Administration
SME Subject Matter Expert
SNPRM Supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WSA Waterway suitability assessment

II. Executive Summary

    The purpose of this final rule is to amend the regulations in Title 
33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 127 concerning 
waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) \1\ and 
liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The final rule makes three changes: (1) 
Changes the risk assessment requirements for facilities that only 
handle LNG as fuel and do not transfer LNG as cargo to or from a 
vessel; (2) updates the technical standards already incorporated by 
reference in part 127; and (3) adds a requirement that LNG import/
export facilities provide certain information to satisfy a statutory 
requirement. We discuss each change below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purpose of simplification, in this final rule we 
refer to a waterfront facility handling LNG as an ``LNG import/
export facility'' to distinguish it from an LNG fuel facility. This 
term is used for convenience and does not appear in the regulatory 
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the final rule adds new Sec.  127.008 to allow waterfront 
facilities handling LNG as fuel (LNG fuel facilities 2 3) to 
conduct an operational risk assessment (ORA) instead of a waterway 
suitability assessment (WSA), without first obtaining Captain of the 
Port (COTP) approval. An ORA focuses on the safety and security 
associated with shore-based operations within the marine transfer area, 
whereas a WSA focuses on the risks and vulnerabilities of the waterway 
associated with an LNG import/export facility. LNG fuel facilities, as 
defined, do not transfer LNG as cargo to or from a vessel and so an 
assessment of the waterway is unnecessary. The final rule reduces the 
regulatory burden on LNG fuel facilities by reducing the scope of the 
analysis and the amount of information facility owners would have to 
submit to the Coast Guard. Reducing the regulatory burden could 
increase the maritime industry's level of interest in converting or 
constructing vessels to use LNG as a marine fuel to comply with 
stricter emissions standards and realize economic advantages.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rule defines LNG fuel facility in Sec.  127.005 to mean 
a waterfront facility that handles LNG for the sole purpose of 
providing LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a 
marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from 
vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
    \3\ LNG fuel facility does not include the transfer of LNG to a 
vessel for delivery to other vessels for use as fuel. This type of 
transfer operation is a transfer of LNG in bulk to a vessel capable 
of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
    \4\ See the report by the Congressional Research Service, titled 
``LNG as a Maritime Fuel: Prospects and Policy'' (dated February 5, 
2019) at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45488.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the final rule updates the technical standards already 
incorporated by reference in part 127 to reflect the most recent 
published editions of these standards. We have determined that 
modified, expanded, and new LNG fuel facilities, LNG import/export 
facilities, and waterfront facilities handling LHG are built to the 
most recent industry standards available at the time of modification, 
expansion, or construction, and not the outdated standards currently 
codified in 33 CFR part 127.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This determination was made by direct communication with 
members of the LNG community through the Coast Guard's participation 
on the technical committee for the National Fire Protection 
Association 59A titled, ``Standard for the Production, Storage, and 
Handling of LNG,'' which has approximately 50 members representing 
various owners, operators, and designers of waterfront facilities 
handling LNG and related LNG equipment suppliers, and through direct 
contact with owners and operators intending to build or modify 
waterfront facilities handling LNG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, for LNG import/export facilities that must comply with the 
WSA requirements in Sec.  127.007, the final rule requires these 
facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard at the time the 
WSA is submitted. The required information is the nation of registry 
for vessels transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to 
be servicing the facilities, and the nationality or citizenship of 
officers and crew serving on board those vessels. We are making this 
change to assist us in meeting our obligation under Sec.  304(c)(2) of 
the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.\6\ This 
statute requires the Coast Guard, when operating as a contributing 
agency in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shoreside 
licensing process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to provide 
this information to FERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Public Law 109-241, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History

    On October 5, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (FR) titled, ``Operational 
Risk Assessments for Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural 
Gas as Fuel, and Updates to Industry Standards.'' \7\ The NPRM included 
a 60-day comment period. No public meetings were requested, and none 
were held. During the comment period for the NPRM, the

[[Page 5662]]

Coast Guard received five comment submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 85 FR 62651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 700 of title 46 United States Code (U.S.C.), Ports and 
Waterways Safety, authorizes the Secretary of the department in which 
the Coast Guard is operating to take certain actions to advance port, 
harbor, and coastal facility safety and security. Specifically, 
Sections 70011 and 70034 authorize the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage, and 
movement of hazardous materials on a structure on or along U.S. 
navigable waters as necessary to protect the vessel, structure, water, 
or shore area. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard in DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 
01.2, paragraph (II)(70).
    The purpose of this final rule is to reduce unnecessary 
requirements for LNG fuel facilities; update technical standards that 
apply to all facilities covered by part 127; and implement a statutory 
requirement that LNG import/export facilities provide certain 
information.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received five comment submissions during the 60-day 
comment period that ended on December 5, 2020. Four comment submissions 
were received from members of the public and one joint submission was 
submitted on behalf of two industry organizations. One commenter 
pointed out that by the time the proposed rule became final, the 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) would have adopted the 2020 
edition of the NFPA 70 standard. In the NPRM, which was published on 
October 5, 2020, we proposed to incorporate by reference the 2017 
edition of NFPA 70. After reviewing this comment, we discovered that 
the 2020 edition of NFPA 70 became effective on August 25, 2019. The 
2020 edition features changes related to emergency disconnects, ground-
fault circuit interrupter protection, surge protection, and other 
topics related to electrical safety. However, the provisions of the 
2020 edition that would apply to regulated facilities through 
Sec. Sec.  127.107(a) and (c), 127.201(c)(1), and 127.1107, remain 
unchanged from the 2017 edition. In this final rule, we incorporate by 
reference the 2020 edition of NFPA 70. Incorporating the most current 
available edition of NFPA 70 will make it easier for regulated entities 
to obtain the incorporated standard. Because this change does not alter 
the regulatory requirements we proposed for public comment, no 
additional notice or opportunity for public comment is necessary.
    The same commenter informed us that the ASTM International (ASTM) 
standard ASTM E119-20, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building 
Construction and Materials, approved May 1, 2020 has superseded NFPA 
251. This standard provides the fire-test-response criteria and 
procedures for structural materials used in building construction. The 
application of the test procedures contained in this standard are used 
to evaluate the duration for which building construction materials and 
assemblies can either contain a fire, retain structural integrity, or 
both. In response to this comment, we will revise the regulatory text 
in this final rule in Sec.  127.005 for the definition of the term 
``fire endurance rating'' by deleting the reference to NFPA 251 and 
replacing it with the reference to ASTM E119-20. This section refers to 
a standard time temperature curve, which is the same in both NFPA 251 
and ASTM E119-20. The NFPA provides notice on their website that it 
withdrew NFPA 251 in the fall of 2010 \8\ and the material contained in 
NFPA 251 is now found in ASTM E119-20 and UL 263. Because making this 
change does not alter the regulatory requirements we proposed for 
public comment, no additional notice or opportunity for public comment 
is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building 
Construction and Materials,'' https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=251. (Last visited Oct. 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter recommended that the best course of action for 
the Coast Guard would be for owners and operators continue to meet with 
the COTP before submitting an ORA to the Coast Guard. The commenter 
said this would allow safety precautions to be taken into consideration 
when establishing new LNG fuel facilities, while also reducing the 
amount of work LNG facility owners and operators would have to do to 
get the LNG fuel facility approved. The Coast Guard expects owners and 
operators to continue meeting with the COTP, but has determined that 
the preliminary requirement for LNG fuel facilities to obtain the 
COTP's approval prior to beginning the ORA should be eliminated. 
Interactions will take place throughout the development of the ORA, 
because the Coast Guard is a key port stakeholder that must be 
consulted during the risk assessment process. New Sec.  127.008(d)(1) 
identifies the standards to be followed for conducting an ORA and each 
of the standards contain provisions for either engaging with local 
stakeholders or the authorities having jurisdiction over the proposed 
LNG fuel facilities. Accordingly, the COTP will continue to work 
closely with owners and operators to assess the risks associated with 
their operation and determine whether the mitigation measures proposed 
are suitable. This regulatory change only eliminates the preliminary 
step, for certain facilities, of obtaining the COTP's approval to begin 
the ORA.
    One commenter made reference to the 2004 Interagency Agreement (IA) 
titled, ``For the Safety and Security Review of Waterfront Import/
Export Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities'' (issued on February 10, 
2004), established between the Coast Guard, FERC, and the Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).\9\ The commenter 
stated that by allowing owners or operators to conduct an ORA, instead 
of a WSA, without first obtaining COTP approval appears to render the 
terms of the IA moot. The IA remains in effect and applies only to LNG 
import or export facilities, which must conduct a WSA, under Sec.  
127.007. The LNG fuel facilities this regulatory action addresses in 
Sec.  127.008 will not be importing or exporting LNG, but providing LNG 
as fuel from shore-based structures to vessels. Accordingly, the IA 
does not apply to the LNG fuel facilities affected by this aspect of 
the final rule. Supplies of LNG will be delivered to an LNG fuel 
facility from shore-based sources (for example, tank trucks, rail cars, 
or pipelines), making waterway assessment unnecessary, because no 
waterborne sources are used to supply LNG to the facility. LNG fuel 
facilities, through the ORA process, will have to assess the overall 
safety and security of the facilities just like LNG import or export 
facilities do when conducting a WSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The IA agreement referenced by the commenter can be found at 
https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/2004-interagency.pdf. This website was accessed on October 26, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard received one joint comment submission on behalf of 
two well-known oil and gas industry organizations, the Center for 
Liquefied Natural Gas and the American Petroleum Institute. These 
organizations voiced strong support for the proposed rule, noting that 
the LNG industry has a strong safety record and long history of working 
closely with regulators and first responders to maximize safety and 
security of both large and small LNG facilities. The commenters said 
that the use of an ORA instead of a WSA will benefit LNG fuel 
facilities and integrate the benefits of risk-based principles over

[[Page 5663]]

the more prescriptive regulations and policies associated with 
conducting a WSA. The commenters said, and the Coast Guard agrees, ``. 
. . that allowing an ORA to be conducted instead of a WSA would benefit 
waterfront facilities handling LNG as fuel. Allowing an ORA would 
integrate the benefits of risk-based principles over the more 
prescriptive regulations of a WSA. Utilizing a risk-based approach 
(like the ORA) effectively manages safety by allowing examination and 
devotion of resources on the areas of the system that pose the greatest 
risk to process safety, mechanical integrity, and product quality 
without compromising equipment care and personnel well-being.'' The 
Coast Guard also believes the ORA focuses attention on critical areas 
and establishes safety standards that all future LNG fuel facility 
owners can follow, which helps ensure a consistent approach for 
evaluating the safety and security concerns associated with each 
individual project. In this manner, maritime safety and security may be 
more effectively managed without unnecessary costs being imposed on the 
industry.
    One concern raised by these commenters involved the proposed 
updates to the existing standards currently incorporated by reference 
in 33 CFR part 127, noting that updating to newer editions could cause 
conflict with standards that are incorporated by reference by other 
government and state agencies that may share overlapping jurisdiction. 
In this regard, the commenters indicated that it is vital that all 
stakeholders, including the operators of LNG fuel facilities and 
personnel of agencies having jurisdiction over the facilities, have a 
clear understanding of which version of a standard is to be used and 
how that standard will be interpreted and enforced. They agree that 
updating existing regulations to incorporate technical standards to 
reflect the most recent published editions is good practice and asked 
that the Coast Guard attempt to ensure that standards are not in 
conflict with other regulatory bodies having overlapping jurisdiction. 
In this instance, the commenters noted that the 2001 and 2006 editions 
of NFPA 59A that are incorporated by reference in PHMSA's regulations 
(see 49 CFR 193.2013) reference different editions of ASME B31.3 and 
NFPA 70 than the editions we intend to incorporate. However, the Coast 
Guard does not believe this causes a conflict, because the regulations 
of both the Coast Guard and PHMSA clearly define each agency's 
jurisdictional boundaries. The Coast Guard has jurisdictional authority 
over the marine transfer areas for LNG and LHG, which are defined in 
Sec.  127.005. PHMSA's jurisdictional authority, as defined in 49 CFR 
193.2001, does not include marine cargo transfer areas, with the 
exception of siting requirements for the facility. Through its 
regulations, the Coast Guard makes it clear to the regulated industry 
that ASME B31.3-2020, referenced in Sec.  127.1101, must be used for 
the construction of piping systems located in the marine transfer areas 
for waterfront facilities handling LHG. Also, through its regulations, 
the Coast Guard makes it clear to the regulated industry that NFPA 70 
2020, referenced in Sec. Sec.  127.107, 127.201, and 127.1107, must be 
used for the construction of electrical systems and warning alarms 
located in the marine transfer areas for LNG and LHG.
    The Coast Guard agrees with many of the points raised by these 
commenters and understands that there may be certain circumstances when 
the editions of standards we incorporate by reference are different 
than the editions of the standards incorporated by other state or 
Federal agencies. The Coast Guard has chosen to incorporate the latest 
editions of the standards referenced in Sec.  127.003 in order to meet 
the intent of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 
(Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary 
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities),\10\ which 
requires that agencies incorporate the most recent standards to enhance 
safety with minimum cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ https://www.nist.gov/system/files/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_01-22-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard coordinated with FERC and PHMSA on this rulemaking. 
Nonetheless, the Coast Guard intends to work with FERC and PHMSA to 
update the existing IA shared between the agencies, which may provide 
an opportunity to address differences in the editions of the standards 
each agency has incorporated by reference in its regulations.
    The Coast Guard also received a question submitted directly to the 
project manager, which the Coast Guard has posted in the docket folder 
for transparency. The question was related to information presented in 
the NPRM, and asked which three facility owners the Coast Guard met 
with and whether there are notes or summaries from those meetings. In 
response, we notified the requestor that the three facilities were Tote 
Maritime, Harvey Gulf Marine International, and Eagle LNG. The 
substance of the meetings is summarized in the NPRM,\11\ and no 
additional notes are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 85 FR 62651, at 62654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of the Rule

    This final rule amends 33 CFR part 127. With this final rule, we 
are finalizing the following three changes:
    First, the Coast Guard is revising its existing regulations to 
allow certain LNG fuel facilities to conduct an ORA instead of a WSA 
without first obtaining COTP approval to do so. By allowing LNG fuel 
facilities that only handle LNG as fuel and do not transfer LNG as 
cargo to or from a vessel to use an ORA in lieu of a WSA, without 
submitting an alternative request and meeting with the COTP, this final 
rule reduces the regulatory burden on LNG fuel facilities. This is 
accomplished by reducing the scope of the analysis and the amount of 
information facility owners will have to submit to the Coast Guard, 
eliminating an unnecessary administrative burden on these entities.
    Second, the Coast Guard is updating the technical standards already 
incorporated by reference in part 127 to reflect the most recent 
published editions of these standards. These technical standards apply 
to LNG fuel facilities, LNG import/export facilities, and waterfront 
facilities handling LHG.
    Third, for LNG import/export facilities that must comply with the 
WSA requirements in Sec.  127.007, the Coast Guard is requiring these 
facilities to provide information at the time the WSA is submitted 
regarding the nation of registry for vessels transporting LNG that are 
reasonably anticipated to be servicing the facilities, and the 
nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board those 
vessels. The Coast Guard is making this change to assist in meeting 
obligations under section 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act of 2006.\12\ This statute requires the Coast Guard, 
when operating as a contributing agency in the FERC shoreside licensing 
process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to provide this 
information to FERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Public Law 109-241, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following paragraphs explain additional, minor ways the final 
rule differs from the proposal on which we received public comments. 
None of these differences alter how the rule affects regulated 
entities, and so no additional notice or opportunity to comment on them 
is necessary.
    The Coast Guard will amend the proposed authority citation for 33 
CFR part 127 from ``Pub. L. 109-241, sec.

[[Page 5664]]

304(c)(2)'' to ``33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2),'' because, on January 1, 2021, 
that section of the statute was codified at 33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2). The 
authority citation also reflects a recent revision to the delegation of 
authorities from the Secretary to the Coast Guard.
    In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to update the existing ASTM 
F1121-87, Standard Specification for International Shore Connections 
for Marine Fire Applications, by replacing the Reapproved 2010 edition 
with the Reapproved 2015 edition. Since publication of the NPRM, the 
Coast Guard learned that ASTM published ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved in 
2019) in January 2020 without change. The substantive content in the 
ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019) remains the same as the Reapproved 2010 
and Reapproved 2015 editions. ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019) is the 
publication most readily available to the public. Accordingly, this 
final rule references the ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019) in Sec. Sec.  
127.003(c)(2), 127.611, and 127.1511.
    Additionally, in the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to update the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) ASME B31.3-1993 
standard by replacing it with the ASME B31.3-2018. Since publication of 
the NPRM, the Coast Guard learned that ASME issued ASME B31.3-2020 on 
June 18, 2021. As a result, the Coast Guard is incorporating the latest 
edition of this standard in the final rule to ensure that piping 
systems used on waterfront facilities handling LHG are designed and 
constructed in accordance with ASME B31.3-2020. This standard is a 
technical engineering standard used by design engineers to ensure that 
piping systems are safe for use with hazardous liquids under pressure. 
Changes between the 2018 and 2020 editions include both minor editorial 
corrections as well as technical changes associated with stress 
calculations and material selections. The changes between editions have 
no cost impact on owners and operators of waterfront facilities 
handling LHG, but rather affect the methods and considerations used by 
design engineers to evaluate materials and calculate stress levels in 
piping systems. This final rule references ASME B31.3-2020 in 
Sec. Sec.  127.003(b)(2) and 127.1101(a).
    In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to update the existing ASME 
B16.5 standard by replacing the 1992 edition with the 2017 edition. 
Since publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard learned that ASME issued 
ASME B16.5-2020 on January 29, 2021. The regulations in Sec.  
127.1102(a)(4)(ii) require that each hose within the marine transfer 
area for LHG used for the transfer of LHG or its vapors to or from a 
vessel must meet the flange requirements contained in ASME B16.5. This 
standard is a technical standard used by designers and manufacturers 
and has no impact on facility owners and operators. Each new edition of 
this standard has a table in the front of the document that identifies 
the changes made to the edition. After evaluating the extent of the 
changes to ASME B16.5-2020, the Coast Guard determined the changes deal 
with such things as stress calculations, new materials, and other 
technical items, which have no direct cost to owners and operators of 
LNG fuel facilities. Incorporating the latest edition available will 
ensure that facilities constructed after the final rule is published 
will be using the most recent industry standards when they are 
designing and constructing their transfer hose systems. Accordingly, in 
this final rule, reference to ASME B16.5-2020 is made in Sec. Sec.  
127.003(b)(1) and 127.1102(a)(4)(ii).
    In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed new paragraph (g) of Sec.  
127.007 to require an owner or operator intending to build a new LNG 
facility to submit the LOI no later than the date that the owner or 
operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 18 CFR 153 or 157, 
and include the nation of registry for, and the nationality or 
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting 
natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the LNG 
facility. During review of the regulatory text, we realized that it is 
best to include this text in existing paragraph (a), which contains the 
requirements for submitting an LOI to the COTP no later than the date 
that the owner or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 
18 CFR parts 153 and 157. Therefore, we are moving the text from 
proposed new paragraph (g) to existing paragraph (a)(1).
    Because we are not finalizing the change we proposed in new 
paragraph (g), existing paragraphs (g) and (h) do not need to be 
redesignated as paragraphs (h) and (i). Therefore, new paragraph (j) is 
being redesignated as new paragraph (i).

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    Section 127.003 of the final rule incorporates by reference 14 
standards. Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, a publication is 
eligible for incorporation by reference if it meets Office of the 
Federal Register policies and is reasonably available to and usable by 
the class of persons affected. Regulations in part 51 require that 
agencies discuss, in the final rule, ways that the materials the agency 
incorporates by reference are reasonably available, to interested 
parties and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In 
addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material.
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section VII.L. of this 
final rule summarizes the major provisions of the standards that the 
Coast Guard incorporates by reference into Sec.  127.003. Interested 
parties can purchase copies of these standards directly from the 
sources listed in Sec.  127.003, or make arrangements to inspect them 
at a Coast Guard facility.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard performed the regulatory analysis of this final 
rule after considering relevant existing statutes and Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    OMB has not designated this final rule a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB 
has not reviewed it. A regulatory analysis follows.
    The following paragraphs explain the impact of the final rule and 
the alternatives we considered. The Coast Guard received five comment 
submissions during the 60-day comment period that ended on December 5, 
2020. We received one comment on the third alternative that we will 
address in the alternative section. We received no public comments on 
the estimated benefits and costs; hence, the methodology employed in 
the regulatory analysis remains unchanged. However, we have updated the 
wage rates and other prices to capture changes in these values since 
the publication of the NPRM. In particular, while the NPRM used 2018 
values, this final rule uses 2020 wage rates and prices.

[[Page 5665]]

    The Coast Guard's authority to address safety and security issues 
raised by the increased use of LNG by maritime vessels is the basis for 
this final rule. In this final rule, the Coast Guard is making it 
easier to conduct an ORA instead of a WSA for certain LNG facilities 
due to the size and scope of these facilities' operations. An ORA 
focuses on the safety and security associated with shore-based 
operations within the marine transfer area, whereas a WSA focuses on 
the risks and vulnerabilities of the waterway associated with an LNG 
import/export facility. ORAs and WSAs follow similar procedures for 
assessing risk, and the Coast Guard determined that it could narrow the 
scope of the assessment for an LNG fuel facility to focus on operations 
solely taking place at the facility if LNG tank vessels do not deliver 
to the facility using the associated waterway.
    We estimated the benefits and costs of this final rule against the 
no-action baseline. We determined that removing the requirements that 
LNG fuel facilities submit an alternative request and meet with the 
COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA has quantifiable benefits in 
the form of cost savings. We also determined that updating standards 
incorporated by reference in this final rule has unquantified benefits. 
Table 1 of this analysis provides a summary of the affected population, 
cost savings, unquantified benefits, and no-cost changes of this final 
rule. We estimate an annualized cost savings to industry of $16,586 
(with a 7-percent discount rate), and an annualized cost savings to the 
government of $700 (with a 7-percent discount rate), for a total net 
annualized cost savings of $17,287 in 2020 dollars, using a 7-percent 
discount rate. This is compared to the proposed rule's estimated total 
net annualized cost savings of $16,843 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-
percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In this regulatory analyses, ``LNG fuel facility'' refers 
to a waterfront facility that handles LNG for the sole purpose of 
providing LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a 
marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from 
vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo. ``LNG import/
export facility'' refers to any structure on, in, or under the 
navigable waters of the United States, or any structure on land or 
any area on shore immediately adjacent to such waters, used or 
capable of being used to transfer liquefied natural gas, in bulk, to 
or from a vessel. ``LHG facility'' refers to any structure on, in, 
or under the navigable waters of the United States, or any structure 
on land or any area on shore immediately adjacent to such waters, 
used or capable of being used to transfer liquefied hazardous gas, 
in bulk, to or from a vessel. These terms are used for convenience 
in this preamble and do not appear in the regulatory text.

            Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability \13\................  New LNG import/export facilities.
                                     New LNG fuel facilities. New LHG
                                     Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population...............  20 new LNG import/export facilities
                                     over the 10-year analysis period.
                                     10 new LNG fuel facilities over the
                                     10-year analysis period. 30 new LHG
                                     facilities over the 10-year
                                     analysis period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to Industry (7-        10-year: ($116,496) *
 percent discount rate).
                                   -------------------------------------
                                    Annualized: ($16,586) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to Government (7-      10-year: ($4,918) *
 percent discount rate).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Annualized: ($700) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No cost requirements..............  Update incorporated technical
                                     standards to reflect the most
                                     recent published editions. Require
                                     the Letter of Intent (LOI) of a new
                                     LNG import/export facility to
                                     include information on the nation
                                     of registry for, and the
                                     nationality or citizenship of
                                     officers and crew serving on board,
                                     vessels transporting natural gas
                                     that are reasonably anticipated to
                                     be servicing that facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified Benefit..............  Updating standards incorporate by
                                     reference improves clarity, and
                                     alleviates discrepancies and
                                     unnecessary duplications between
                                     regulatory standards and industry
                                     best practices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Costs are in 2020 dollars.

Affected Population
    As of 2020, there are 12 existing LNG import/export facilities, 3 
existing LNG fuel facilities, and 106 existing LHG facilities that are 
regulated under 33 CFR part 127. No new facilities have been 
constructed since the publication of the proposed rule. Based on the 
Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) 
database regarding activation dates of the 3 existing LNG fuel 
facilities and the projected activation dates of 1 LNG fuel facility 
under construction, we estimate that 10 new LNG fuel facilities will be 
built during the 10-year analysis period, or 1 annually.\14\ Using 
MISLE data on existing LNG import/export facilities, we estimate that 
20 new LNG import/export facilities will be built during the 10-year 
analysis period, or 2 annually. Using MISLE data, we estimate that 30 
new LHG facilities will be built during the 10-year analysis period, or 
3 annually. However, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume that, 
on average, each year 3 new LHG facilities will replace 3 retiring LHG 
facilities for a static total population of 106 facilities. Table 2 
presents the projected number of LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel 
facilities, and LHG facilities over the 10-year analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The first LNG fuel facility in the United States became 
operational in 2016. The second and third became operational in 2018 
and 2019, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule finalizes the three substantive changes proposed in the 
NPRM to existing regulations that impact different segments of the 
affected population. First, the final rule modifies current regulations 
to allow LNG fuel facilities that do not receive LNG from vessels to 
conduct an ORA instead of the WSA without first obtaining COTP approval 
per existing Sec.  127.007, which impacts one new LNG fuel facility 
annually. Second, the final rule updates the technical standards 
already incorporated by reference in part 127 to

[[Page 5666]]

reflect the most recent published editions of these standards, which 
impacts one new LNG fuel facility, two new LNG import/export 
facilities, and three replacement LHG facilities annually. Third, the 
final rule requires that LNG import/export facilities must comply with 
the WSA requirements in Sec.  127.007 to provide information at the 
time the WSA is submitted regarding the nation of registry for vessels 
transporting LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the 
facilities and the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew 
serving on board those vessels, which impacts two new LNG import/export 
facilities annually.
BILLING CODE 9100-04-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.003

[[Page 5667]]

Benefits
Cost Savings to Industry
    The quantified benefits of this final rule are due to the cost 
savings associated with the new requirement allowing businesses that 
intend to build an LNG fuel facility, modify an existing LNG fuel 
facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility to complete an 
LOI and ORA instead of an LOI and a WSA without submitting an 
alternative request and meeting with the COTP.
    Currently, an owner intending to build a new LNG fuel facility has 
the option of either (1) meeting with the COTP and submitting an 
alternative request to complete an ORA; or (2) completing a traditional 
WSA that focuses on the traffic, security, and navigational hazards of 
the affected waterway in addition to operational risk. With the final 
rule, an owner intending to build a new LNG fuel facility can conduct 
an ORA in lieu of a WSA without submitting an alternative request and 
having a preliminary meeting with the COTP, resulting in cost savings. 
The remainder of this regulatory analysis presents the cost savings 
associated with this change.
    As noted in the ``Affected Population'' section of this analysis, 
there are currently three active LNG fuel facilities and one LNG fuel 
facility under construction. Of these four facilities, three submitted 
alternative requests and received permission to conduct an ORA under 
existing alternative methods because the Coast Guard determined that an 
ORA was more appropriate for their intended LNG operations. The other 
LNG fuel facility chose to complete a WSA and thus did not submit an 
alternative request. Based on this background information and 
discussions with subject matter experts (SMEs) in the Coast Guard 
Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), we estimate 
that, going forward, 75 percent of the LNG fuel facilities will submit 
an alternative request and complete an ORA and the other 25 percent 
will complete a WSA (see table 3 below).
    According to the OMB-approved collection of information (COI) 
(Control Number 1625-0049), completing an alternative request requires 
2 clerical hours and 8 managerial hours. The mean hourly wage rates in 
2020 for clerks and managers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS) were $29.50 and $77.48, respectively.\15\ To account for the cost 
of employee benefits, such as vacation time and health insurance, we 
multiplied the mean hourly wage rates by a load factor of 1.62, 
resulting in a loaded mean hourly wage rate of about $47.79 for a clerk 
($29.50 x 1.62) and $125.52 for a manager ($77.48 x 1.62).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We used 2020 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics for the natural gas 
distribution sector using the North American Industry Classification 
System with an industry code of 221200. Readers can view the wage 
rates at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_221200.htm. Note 
that we used the occupational code of Information and Record Clerks, 
OC 43-4000, as a proxy for the labor category ``clerk'', and the 
occupational code of Architectural and Engineering Managers, OC 11-
9041, as a proxy for the labor category ``manager'' as a manager 
with some engineering knowledge is expected to be involved in 
completing the alternative request.
    \16\ To obtain the load factor, we divided the total cost for 
employers by the wages and salaries of private workers for the 
utility sector in December 2020, or $67.62 divided by $41.64 equals 
1.62. Readers can find this information in Table 4 of the Employer 
Costs for Employee Compensation December 2020 News Release available 
at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03182021.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we estimate the labor cost of completing an alternative 
request to be about $1,100, which includes $95.58 in clerical labor 
cost (2 clerical hours x $47.79 per hour) and $1,004.16 in managerial 
labor cost (8 managerial hours x $125.52 per hour). With this final 
rule, LNG fuel facilities will no longer submit an alternative request 
to complete an ORA; therefore, each new facility that requests an ORA 
will have a one-time benefit of $1,100. As shown in table 3, given that 
75 percent of new facilities will submit an alternative request, we 
estimate the annualized cost savings to industry to be about $825, 
using a 7-percent discount rate.

[[Page 5668]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.004

    As part of requesting an alternative approval to conduct an ORA, 
the requesting party meets with the COTP to discuss the alternative. 
These meetings require representatives of the requesting firm to travel 
to meet with the COTP. The travel costs associated with these meetings 
mainly depend on the distance between the firm's headquarters and the 
site selected for the new LNG fuel facility. Review of the headquarters 
locations and the site locations of existing and under construction LNG 
fuel facilities in our MISLE database suggests that 75 percent of the 
facilities

[[Page 5669]]

are approximately an 80-mile round trip drive from the COTP; therefore, 
we assume the representatives of these facilities will drive to the 
meeting. Flight travel will be required for visits to the other 25 
percent of facilities.\17\ Moreover, discussions with Coast Guard SMEs 
in CG-OES revealed that a meeting lasts for an average of 2 hours and 
involves two managerial employees, one technical employee (engineer) 
and one outside consultant hired by the firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Of the four LNG fuel facilities (three existing and one 
projected to be operational in the future), three of the facilities 
are, on average, within an 80-mile round trip from their respective 
headquarters. One facility located in Jacksonville, FL is an 
approximately 1,700-mile round trip from its headquarters' location 
in Houston, TX. Based on this information, we assume that 75 percent 
of participants will drive while the other 25 percent will fly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours to complete the 80-
mile round trip drive. Accordingly, including driving time, we estimate 
the duration of the meeting to be about 4 work hours. The BLS reported 
a mean hourly wage rate for an engineer to be $54.18 in 2020; using a 
load factor of 1.62, we obtained a loaded mean hourly wage rate of 
about $87.77 ($54.18 x 1.62).\18\ Discussions with industry consultants 
revealed that the mean hourly wage rate for a consultant completing 
WSAs and ORAs for LNG fuel facilities was about $229 in 2017.\19\ Using 
the inflation factor of 1.0549, we estimate the consultant mean hourly 
wage rate to be about $242 in 2020 dollars.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We calculated an engineer's mean hourly wage using 2020 
wage data from BLS' Occupational Employment Statistics for the 
natural gas distribution sector using the North American Industry 
Classification System with an industry code of 221200. Readers can 
use the link https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_221200.htm. 
Note that the occupational code for engineers is OC 17-2000.
    \19\ Discussion with consultants reveal that, on average, in 
2017, completing a WSA costs $114,585 and takes about 500 hours. 
Based on this information, we estimate the mean consultant wage rate 
to be about $229.17 ($114,585 divided by 500 hours equals $229.17 
per hour) in 2017.
    \20\ To obtain the inflation factor, we divided the GDP deflator 
for 2020 (113.625) by the GDP deflator for 2017 (107.710), which 
equals 1.054915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the total labor cost per meeting when industry 
representatives drive to meet with the COTP to be about $2,323 
annually, which is the sum of $351.08 in engineer's labor cost (4 hours 
x $87.77), $1,004.16 in manager's labor cost (2 managers x 4 hours x 
$125.52), and $968 for the consultant's labor cost (4 hours x $242).
    To calculate the cost of driving to the COTP's facility, we use the 
2020 General Services Administration (GSA) reimbursable rate for 
personal vehicles, $0.575 per mile, which considers the cost of fuel, 
depreciation, maintenance, and insurance.\21\ Accordingly, the Coast 
Guard estimates that an 80-mile round trip drive to the COTP costs 
about $46 (80 miles x $0.575 per mile) per new facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Readers can view the 2020 reimbursable rates for personal 
vehicles at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-mileage-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this final rule, industry representatives will no longer need 
to drive to meet with the COTP to submit and discuss the alternative, 
resulting in an annual benefit of $2,369 per meeting ($46 driving cost 
+ $2,323 in labor cost). As shown in table 4, given that about 56.25 
percent of the new LNG fuel facility representatives will drive to the 
COTP, we estimate the annualized cost savings to industry of not having 
to drive to the COTP to discuss an alternative request to be about 
$1,327 using a 7-percent discount rate.\22\ We estimate the discounted 
cost savings to industry of not driving to meet with a COTP to be about 
$9,319 over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ We obtained 56.25 percent by multiplying the proportion of 
facilities submitting alternative (75 percent) by the proportion 
driving to the COTP (75 percent) (i.e., 0.75 multiplied by 0.75 
equals 0.5625).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.005

    As stated above, we assume that 25 percent of the facilities 
submitting alternative requests will fly representatives to meet with 
the COTP. We estimate that, including travel time, the trip will take 
approximately 12 work hours.\23\ Accordingly, the labor cost per 
meeting will be about $6,970, which is the sum of $1,053 for an 
engineer's labor cost (12 hours x $87.77 per hour), $3,012 for a 
manager's labor cost (2 managers x 12 hours x $125.52 per hour), and 
$2,904 for a consultant's labor cost (12 hours x $242 per hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This estimate is based on the travel time between one LNG 
fuel facility's headquarters--which is in Houston--and its facility 
location--which is in Jacksonville, FL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the cost of flying to the COTP's facility, we first 
computed the cost of a plane ticket, hotel, rental car, and per 
diem.\24\ We estimate the cost of each round trip flight (non-stop) to 
be about $275, for a total flight cost of $1,100 (4 flight tickets x 
$275 per round trip flight ticket).\25\ The Coast Guard assumes that 
each individual spends a

[[Page 5671]]

night in a hotel at a cost of $110 per night,\26\ for a total cost of 
$440 (4 rooms x $110 per night). We assume that the four 
representatives will share a rental car estimated to cost $63 for 
transit to and from the airport and the meeting.\27\ We also assume 
that each individual needs about 2 days of meals and incidental 
allowance (first and last day of travel), which is about $41.25 per day 
per person for a total of $330 ($41.25 per day x 2 days x 4 
persons).\28\ Accordingly, we estimate the total cost of flight travel 
to be about $1,933, which includes the cost of plane tickets ($1,100), 
cost of overnight accommodations ($440), cost of a rental car ($63), 
and per diem expenses ($330). Hence, we estimate that this final rule 
will result in an annual cost savings of about $8,903 per meeting 
($1,933 in transportation cost and $6,970 in labor cost), as industry 
representatives will no longer need to fly to meet with the COTP. Given 
that 18.75 percent of the new LNG fuel facilities (one facility a year) 
will choose to fly representatives to meet with the COTP, we estimate 
the annualized cost savings to industry of not flying will be about 
$1,669 ($8,903 x 1 facility x 0.75 x 0.25) using a 7-percent discount 
rate, where 0.75 is the fraction of facilities submitting an 
alternative and 0.25 is the fraction flying to meet the COTP.\29\ 
Moreover, we estimate the discounted or the present value cost savings 
to industry of not flying to meet with the COTP to be $11,724 over a 
10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 
5 for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As the future location of new facilities and the 
corresponding headquarters of these facilities are unknown, we use 
national averages for flight costs, lodging expenses, and per diems.
    \25\ U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (https://www.bts.gov/content/national-level-domestic-average-fare-series) 
reports the average cost of a domestic U.S. flight on a quarterly 
basis. We estimate the mean cost of domestic flight to be $275 in 
2020.
    \26\ We multiplied the 2020 standard GSA rate for lodging 
($96)--which can be found at FY 2020 Per Diem Rates for Federal 
Travelers Released, GSA--by the national mean lodging tax rate of 
14.10 percent--which can be found at HVS, 2020 HVS Lodging Tax 
Report--USA--for a total cost of $110 per night ($96 per night 
multiplied by 14.10 percent tax equals $110 per night) in 2020 
dollars.
    \27\ We used the $50 cost estimate of a round trip airport 
transfer from the ``Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital 
Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses 
and Certificates of Registry'' interim rule (71 FR 2154, January 13, 
2006) as a proxy for the cost of a round trip airport transfer, and 
traveling to and from the meeting. We adjusted the $50 amount to 
2020 dollars using an inflation factor of 1.2616, which is obtained 
by dividing 2020 GDP deflator (113.625) by 2006 GDP deflator 
(90.066) (i.e., 113.625 divided by 90.066 equals 1.2616). So, we 
estimate the airport transfer cost to be about $63 ($50 multiplied 
by 1.616 equals $63) in 2020 dollars.
    \28\ The 2020 GSA rate for meals and incidental expenses for 
first and last day of travel is $41.25 (See FY 2020 Per Diem Rates 
for Federal Travelers Released, GSA).
    \29\ We obtained 18.75 percent by multiplying the proportion of 
facilities submitting alternative (75 percent) by the proportion 
flying to the COTP (25 percent) (i.e., 0.25 multiplied by 0.75 
equals 0.1875).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5672]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.006

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
    Based on reviews of data in MISLE and discussions with Coast Guard 
SMEs, we determined that, of the four LNG fuel facilities (three 
existing and one under construction), three submitted an alternative 
request and completed an ORA and one completed a WSA. Accordingly, we 
estimate that under the existing regulatory requirements, 25 percent of 
LNG fuel facilities complete a full WSA instead of submitting an 
alternative request. With this final rule, new LNG fuel facilities no 
longer need to complete a WSA when an ORA is a more appropriate and 
cheaper alternative. Discussions with industry representatives revealed 
that consulting firms take approximately 289 hours to complete an ORA 
and 500 hours to complete a WSA. Accordingly, we estimate the average 
cost to complete a WSA to be $121,000 (500 consultant hours x $242 per 
hour) and the average cost to complete an ORA to be $69,938 (289 
consultant hours x $239 per hour); hence, completing an ORA instead of 
a WSA results in a cost savings of about $51,062.
    Table 6 presents the annualized cost savings to industry for 
completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA. Given that only 25 percent of new 
facilities complete a

[[Page 5673]]

WSA, we estimate the total annualized cost savings to industry of 
completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA to be approximately $12,766 ($51,062 
in cost savings x 1 facility x 0.25 of facilities that submit WSAs), 
using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the total discounted or 
present value cost savings of completing an ORA in place of a WSA to be 
about $89,660 over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent 
discount rate.

                                   Table 6--Discounted Cost Savings to Industry of Completing ORAs as Opposed to WSAs
                                                                         [$2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total number of
                       Year                         Total change     new LNG fuel        Total cost     Cost savings discounted  Cost savings discounted
                                                       in cost        facilities          savings                at 3%                    at 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)                                                           (b)               (c)    (d) = (b) x (c)       (j) = (i) / (1.03)       (k) = (i) / (1.07)
                                                                                                                          \(a)\                    \(a)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................         $51,062              0.25            $12,766                  $12,394                  $11,930
2................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                   12,033                   11,150
3................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                   11,682                   10,420
4................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                   11,342                    9,739
5................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                   11,012                    9,102
6................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                   10,691                    8,506
7................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                   10,380                    7,950
8................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                   10,077                    7,430
9................................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                    9,784                    6,944
10...............................................          51,062              0.25             12,766                    9,499                    6,489
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................  ..............  ................            127,655                  108,892                   89,660
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized...............................  ..............  ................  .................                   12,766                   12,766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    Table 7 contains the total cost savings to industry of removing the 
requirements that LNG fuel facilities submit an alternative request and 
meet with the COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. We estimate the 
total present value or discounted cost savings to industry of this 
final rule over a 10-year period of analysis to be about $116,496 in 
2020 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the 
annualized cost savings to industry to be about $16,586 in 2020 
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

[[Page 5674]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.007

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Cost Savings to Government
    Under the current regulation in Sec.  127.017, the Coast Guard must 
review alternative requests submitted by facilities seeking to conduct 
an ORA in lieu of WSA and meet with facility representatives at the 
COTP to discuss

[[Page 5675]]

the alternative. With this final rule, the Coast Guard no longer needs 
to review alternative requests, meet with facility representatives, and 
review a WSA, resulting in benefits, in the form of cost savings, to 
the Federal Government.
    According to the OMB-approved COI (Control Number 1625-0049), 
reviewing an alternative request requires 4 hours of enlisted staff 
time (2 hours of E-5 time and 2 hours of E-6 time) and 1 hour of two 
officers' time combined (0.5 hours of O-2 time and 0.5 hours of O-3 
time).
    To estimate the labor cost of reviewing alternative requests, we 
used loaded hourly wage rates of officers and enlisted staff members in 
Commandant Instruction 7310.1U, Coast Guard Reimbursable Standard 
Rates. For the 2020 fiscal year, the loaded hourly wage rates for O-2, 
O-3, E-5, and E-6 employees were $70, $84, $54, and $62, 
respectively.\30\ Accordingly, we estimate the total labor cost of 
reviewing an alternative request to be about $311 (see table 8 for 
details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Readers can find the wage rates of officers and enlisted 
staff members on page 2 of Enclosure 2 of the Commandant Instruction 
7310.1U: REIMBURSABLE STANDARD RATES, COMDTINST 7310.1U (https://media.defense.gov/2020/Mar/04/2002258826/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1U.PDF).

                                      Table 8--Government Cost Savings for No Longer Reviewing Alternative Requests
                                                                         [$2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Hours                           Cost
                     Employee code                         Loaded  ----------------------------------------------------------------     Cost savings
                                                            wage      Baseline    Post-rule        Baseline          Post-rule
                                                               (a)          (b)          (c)    (d) = (a) x (b)    (e) = (a) x (c)         (f) = (e)-(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-5....................................................        $54            2            0               $108                 $0                  $108
E-6....................................................         62            2            0                124                  0                   124
O-2....................................................         70          0.5            0                 35                  0                    35
O-3....................................................         84          0.5            0                 42                  0                    42
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................  .........            5            0                309                  0                   309
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities have currently 
submitted an alternative request, and given that we estimate one 
submission annually, we estimate the annualized cost savings to the 
Federal Government of no longer reviewing these requests to be about 
$232 ($309 in cost saving x 1 facility x 0.75), using a 7-percent 
discount rate.
    In addition to reviewing the alternative request, Coast Guard staff 
must also meet with representatives of the firm submitting the 
alternative request. Discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in CG-OES 
revealed that the meetings involve O-3 and O-4 level Coast Guard staff 
and last 2 hours. According to the Commandant Instruction 7310.1U, 
Coast Guard Reimbursable Standard Rates, for the 2020 fiscal year, the 
loaded mean hourly wage rate for O-4 was $98. Accordingly, we estimate 
the total labor cost of reviewing an alternative request to be $364 ((2 
hours of O-3 time x $84) + (2 hours of O-4 time x $98)). Therefore, 
given the assumption that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities will submit 
alternative requests, and given that there will be one submission 
annually, the average annual cost savings to the Federal Government of 
no longer meeting with facility representatives will be $273 ($364 in 
cost saving x 1 facility x 0.75), undiscounted.
    Finally, we anticipate the Federal Government will save money by 
reviewing an ORA when compared to a WSA. The COI (Control Number 1625-
0049) reports that reviewing a WSA and the corresponding hazard 
identification (HAZID) \31\ study requires 20 hours of enlisted staff 
time (10 hours of E-5 time and 10 hours of E-6 time) and 40 hours of 
officer time (20 hours of O-2 time and 20 hours of O-3 time), costing 
approximately $4,240. Based on discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in 
Sector Jacksonville, reviewing an ORA and the corresponding HAZID study 
requires 38 hours of officer time (19 hours of O-3 time and 19 hours of 
O-4 time), costing about $3,458. Accordingly, we estimate the cost 
savings from reviewing an ORA instead of a WSA to be about $782 ($4,240 
- $3,458), undiscounted (See table 9 for detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ A HAZID study is carried out to identify the main risks 
that can occur during LNG transfers from an LNG fuel facility to a 
receiving vessel.

                                          Table 9--Government Cost Savings to Review an ORA as Opposed to a WSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Hours                           Cost
                       Employee code                          Loaded  ----------------------------------------------------------------    Cost savings
                                                               wage      Baseline    Post-rule        Baseline          Post-rule
                                                                  (a)          (b)          (c)    (d) = (a) x (b)    (e) = (a) x (c)      (f) = (e)-(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-5.......................................................        $54           10            0               $540                 $0               $540
E-6.......................................................         62           10            0                620                  0                620
O-2.......................................................         70           20            0              1,400                  0              1,400
O-3.......................................................         84           20           19              1,680              1,596                 84
O-4.......................................................         98            0           19                  0              1,862             -1,862
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................  .........           60           38              4,240              3,458                782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, given that only 25 percent of the LNG facilities 
currently conduct a WSA, instead of submitting an alternative request, 
we estimate the annualized cost savings to the government of reviewing 
an ORA instead of a WSA to be about $196 ($782 in cost savings x 1 
facility x 0.25) using a 7-percent discount rate.
    Table 10 presents the total cost savings to the Federal Government 
associated with eliminating the requirement to submit an alternative 
request and meet with the COTP to

[[Page 5676]]

conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. We estimate the total discounted or 
present value cost savings to the Federal Government over a 10-year 
period of analysis to be about $4,918, using a 7-percent discount rate. 
We estimate the annualized cost savings to the Federal Government to be 
about $700, using a 7-percent discount rate.

                                                                             Table 10--Total Government Cost Savings
                                                                                             [$2020]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Cost savings item
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------
                                Year                                   Alternative     Meeting with                    Total undiscounted cost  Cost savings discounted  Cost savings discounted
                                                                       submission        industry      Reviewing WSAs          savings                   at 3%                    at 7%
                                                                         review       representatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)                                                                             (b)               (c)             (d)    (e) = (b) + (c) + (d)       (f) = (e) / (1.03)       (g) = (e) / (1.07)
                                                                                                                                                                  \(a)\                    \(a)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................................            $232              $273            $196                     $700                     $680                     $654
2..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      660                      612
3..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      641                      572
4..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      622                      534
5..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      604                      499
6..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      586                      467
7..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      569                      436
8..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      553                      408
9..................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      537                      381
10.................................................................             232               273             196                      700                      521                      356
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................................  ..............  ................  ..............                    7,003                    5,973                    4,918
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized.................................................  ..............  ................  ..............  .......................                      700                      700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Total Cost Savings
    Table 11 summarizes the total cost savings of this final rule to 
industry and the Federal Government for the 10-year period of analysis. 
We estimate the total discounted or present value cost savings to 
industry and the Federal Government over a 10-year period of analysis 
to be about $121,414 in 2020 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. 
We estimate the annualized cost savings to be about $17,287 in 2020 
dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.

                       Table 11--Total Cost Savings to Industry and the Federal Government
                                                     [$2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Total cost    Total cost        Total          Discounted cost savings
                Year                   savings to    savings to    undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                        industry     government    cost savings         3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................       $16,586          $700         $17,287         $16,783         $16,156
2...................................        16,586           700          17,287          16,294          15,099
3...................................        16,586           700          17,287          15,820          14,111
4...................................        16,586           700          17,287          15,359          13,188
5...................................        16,586           700          17,287          14,912          12,325
6...................................        16,586           700          17,287          14,477          11,519
7...................................        16,586           700          17,287          14,056          10,765
8...................................        16,586           700          17,287          13,646          10,061
9...................................        16,586           700          17,287          13,249           9,403
10..................................        16,586           700          17,287          12,863           8,788
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................       165,863         7,003         172,866         147,458         121,414
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized..................  ............  ............  ..............          17,287          17,287
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Unquantified Benefits
    This final rule has unquantified benefits to the regulated 
industry. This final rule updates the standards incorporated by 
reference to reflect the latest standards available to industry and 
requires all new LNG import/export facilities and waterfront facilities 
handling LHG to meet these standards. This requirement benefits the 
regulated industry as it eliminates the confusion that may arise from 
different standards existing in Coast Guard regulations that do not 
match current industry standards.
Cost
    The requirements of this final rule do not add to industry costs 
compared to the no-action baseline. In particular, we determined that 
updating industry standards incorporated by reference in the regulation 
is a no-cost change. Based on discussions with an industry consultant 
and SMEs in CG-OES, we determined that industry builds new, expanded, 
and modified LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG 
facilities to the most current standards available at the time, and not 
to the outdated standards currently codified in part 127. In addition, 
the new industry standards do not apply to facilities constructed, 
expanded, or modified under a contract-awarded after the implementation 
date of the final rule. Hence, we do not anticipate owners and 
operators of new, expanded and modified facilities to incur any cost

[[Page 5677]]

to meet the updated or new industry standards.
    In addition, as part of the LOI, the Coast Guard is adding a new 
paragraph, Sec.  127.007(a)(1). This paragraph requires LNG import/
export facilities that complete a WSA to provide information to the 
Coast Guard on the nation of registry and the nationality or 
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board vessels transporting 
LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility. This 
requirement will only be applicable when a facility has to submit the 
LOI and WSA to the Coast Guard, and is not required every time a vessel 
comes to port. Because both the LOI and WSA are submitted years before 
the facility becomes operational, Coast Guard SMEs have determined that 
it is highly unlikely any specific details regarding vessels and their 
crew will be known at the time the facility submits the LOI and WSA. 
Table 12 summarizes the changes with no cost impacts.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

[[Page 5678]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.008

[[Page 5679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.009

[[Page 5680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.010

[[Page 5681]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.011

[[Page 5682]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.012

[[Page 5683]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.013

[[Page 5684]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02FE22.014

[[Page 5685]]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Alternatives
    While developing this final rule, the Coast Guard considered three 
alternatives to the rule. We present a summary of the alternatives 
below and show their corresponding impact and cost savings in table 13.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
    Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would accept the status quo 
and review each proposal for an LNG fuel facility on a case-by-case, 
equivalency basis. We rejected this alternative because the Coast Guard 
believes this approach is inefficient in an environment of growing 
interest in LNG fuel because it does not respond to the needs of the 
U.S. maritime industry. This alternative would not impose any 
additional costs on industry, nor will this option result in cost 
savings for the affected facilities or the Coast Guard.
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA, But Do Not Update the IBR Standards 
Alternative
    Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would allow new LNG fuel 
facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA without submitting an 
alternative request and meeting with the COTP. However, under this 
alternative, the Coast Guard would not update the existing IBR 
standards. This alternative would not impose any additional costs to 
industry and would result in cost savings. We rejected this alternative 
because the regulations would continue to reference outdated standards 
instead of reflecting industry best practices and the best technologies 
available to industry.
Alternative 3: Continue To Meet With the COTP When Submitting the ORA
    Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would allow new LNG fuel 
facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA, as long as the facility 
representatives continue to meet with the COTP and get the ORA 
approved. Although this alternative would be less burdensome compared 
to the baseline, the Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it 
would require industry representatives to continue meeting with the 
COTP in person to discuss the ORA.
    One commenter expressed support for this alternative, noting that 
it would be beneficial if owners and operators continue to meet with 
the COTP before submitting an ORA, as this would reduce the amount of 
work facility owners would have to do to get the LNG fuel facility 
approved. Another commenter added that the meeting provides the COTP 
with an opportunity to notice any potential safety and security risks 
to the facility. As stated before, the Coast Guard expects owners and 
operators to continue meeting with the COTP, but has determined that 
the preliminary requirement for certain facilities to obtain the COTP's 
approval prior to beginning the ORA should be eliminated.

             Table 13--Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Annualized         Impact of the
          Alternative             cost savings         alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule.....................         $17,287  Codifies industry
                                                  standards, establishes
                                                  national baseline
                                                  safety standards and
                                                  alleviates
                                                  discrepancies and
                                                  unnecessary
                                                  duplication between
                                                  regulatory standards
                                                  and industry best
                                                  practices. In
                                                  addition, it reduces
                                                  the burden to industry
                                                  by allowing new LNG
                                                  fuel facilities to
                                                  submit an ORA instead
                                                  of a WSA without first
                                                  having to submit an
                                                  alternative request
                                                  and meet with the COTP
                                                  to obtain approval.
Alternative 1: No Action.......               0  This alternative would
                                                  not codify minimum
                                                  safety standards,
                                                  respond to industry
                                                  needs, or reduce
                                                  industry burden. It
                                                  would not impose any
                                                  additional costs.
Alternative 2: Submit an ORA,            17,287  This alternative would
 but do not update the IBR                        reduce the burden to
 Standards Alternative.                           industry by allowing
                                                  new LNG fuel
                                                  facilities to submit
                                                  an ORA instead of a
                                                  WSA without first
                                                  having to submit an
                                                  alternative request
                                                  and meet with the COTP
                                                  to obtain approval.
                                                  However, it would not
                                                  update IBR standards.
                                                  This alternative would
                                                  not impose any
                                                  additional costs to
                                                  industry.
Alternative 3: Continue to Meet     \32\ 14,018  This alternative would
 with the COTP when submitting                    codify industry
 an ORA.                                          standards establishing
                                                  national baseline
                                                  safety standards. In
                                                  addition, it would
                                                  reduce the burden to
                                                  industry by allowing
                                                  new LNG fuel
                                                  facilities to submit
                                                  an ORA instead of a
                                                  WSA without first
                                                  having to submit an
                                                  alternative request.
                                                  However, this
                                                  alternative would
                                                  still require meeting
                                                  with the COTP, making
                                                  it more burdensome
                                                  compared to the final
                                                  rule. This alternative
                                                  would not impose any
                                                  additional costs to
                                                  industry, but has less
                                                  cost savings compared
                                                  to Alternative 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Small Entities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ This is cost savings under the preferred option ($17,287) 
minus the cost of meeting to industry, which equals $1,327 when 
driving and $1,669 when flying, for a total of $2,996; and the cost 
of meeting to Government, which is $273. $17,287-($2,996 + 273) = 
$14,018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. 
There were no public comments pertaining to the analysis on small 
entities.
    This rule applies to new LNG fuel facilities, LNG import and export 
facilities, and new LHG facilities. A threshold analysis of the small 
entity impacts follows.
LNG Fuel Facilities
    The Coast Guard has determined this rule will not generate costs on 
existing LNG fuel facilities but will generate cost savings to one new 
facility per year. In particular, we estimate that this rule will 
generate a net cost savings of about $16,586, using 7-percent discount 
rate, to one new LNG fuel facility per year, compared to the $16,153 
net cost savings calculated in the proposed rule. To estimate the 
potential impact on small entities, we compare the $16,586 in net cost 
savings with the annual revenue data of the new LNG fuel facility 
impacted by this rule. The Coast Guard determined that an entity would 
have to have an annual revenue of $1,658,600 or less for this rule to 
have an impact greater than 1 percent of revenue.
    Using the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards

[[Page 5686]]

table,\33\ we determined that two of the four LNG fuel facilities are 
small entities. These two small entities have a North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code of 213112 and 541990. Based on SBA's 
size standards table, the size standard for these codes is $38.5 
million and $15 million, respectively. Publicly available data suggests 
that the annual revenue of the two facilities is about $2.4 million and 
about $3.8 million, respectively. Thus, conservatively assuming the new 
LNG fuel facility will have annual revenues equivalent to the smallest 
entity in the industry, we estimate that the economic impact, in the 
form of cost savings, of this rule will be approximately 0.69 percent 
of revenue (($16,586 / $2,400,000) x 100 = 0.6910)), compared to the 
0.673 percent of revenue calculated in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Readers can view industry size standards at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (accessed July 
11, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No not-for-profit organizations are involved with LNG fuel 
facilities. In addition, this rule will not have an adverse or 
beneficial impact on small government entities.
LNG Import/Export Facilities
    The Coast Guard has determined that this rule will have no cost or 
cost savings impact on existing and new LNG import/export facilities. 
Moreover, no not-for-profit organizations are involved with LNG import/
export facilities. This rule will not have an adverse or beneficial 
impact on small government entities.
LHG Facilities
    The Coast Guard has determined that this rule will have no cost or 
cost savings impact on existing and new LHG facilities. Moreover, no 
not-for-profit organizations are involved with LHG facilities. This 
rule will not have an adverse or beneficial impact on small government 
entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard 
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain 
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for a revised collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting, 
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar 
actions. The title and description of the information collection, a 
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate 
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering 
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection.
    Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and 
Liquefied Hazardous Gas.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0049.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard currently 
collects information from waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG 
under 33 CFR part 127. The current information collection request 
contains requirements in the following sections: LOIs, WSAs, the 
submission of appeals to the Coast Guard, the submission of 
alternatives to the Coast Guard, Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, 
Certification of the Person in Charge, Declaration of Inspection, and 
Records of Maintenance. In addition, this rule will add a new 
collection of information for ORA submissions for new LNG fuel 
facilities.
    Need for Information: The Coast Guard has regulations that provide 
safety standards for the design and construction, equipment, 
operations, maintenance, personnel training, and fire protection at 
waterfront facilities handling LNG. These regulations help reduce the 
probability that an accident could occur and help reduce the damage and 
injury to persons and property should an accident occur.
    Use of Information: The Coast Guard currently uses the information 
collected for the following purposes: (1) To determine the suitability 
of a waterfront facility handling LNG to safely conduct LNG fuel 
transfer operations; (2) to properly evaluate alternative procedures to 
ensure they provide at least the same degree of safety as the 
regulations; (3) to ensure that safe operating procedures and an 
effective training program are set up by the waterfront facility 
operator; (4) to ensure that effective procedures have been set up by 
the waterfront facility operator to respond to emergencies; ensure the 
person in charge of an LNG or LHG transfer is properly qualified; and 
(5) to verify that persons in charge are following proper transfer 
procedures.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are LNG import/
export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG facilities.
    Number of Respondents: This rule does not change the number of 
respondents. However, we anticipate the number of waterfront facilities 
handling LNG will increase by three annually (two new LNG import/export 
facilities and one LNG fuel facility). We also anticipate three new LHG 
facilities will replace three retiring facilities annually.
    Frequency of Response: The number of responses will vary by 
requirement. This rule does not change the frequency of responses for 
existing requirements. However, this rule introduces a new ORA 
requirement, which is a one-time requirement for a LNG fuel facility.
    Burden of Response: The burden per response for each regulatory 
requirement varies. For the new ORA requirement, we estimate it will 
take 289 hours to complete. Submitting an ORA in place of a WSA (500 
hours per response) is a savings of 211 hours per response.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: To account for the change in the 
facility population and the new ORA option, we estimate that the burden 
will increase by 1,956 hours.
    For a new LNG import/export facility, this rule will require 
providing information to the Coast Guard at the time the WSA is 
submitted on the nation of registry for, and the nationality or 
citizenship of officers and crew serving on board vessels transporting 
natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that 
facility. The Coast Guard does not expect the facility to have specific 
details regarding vessels and their crew when it submits the LOI and 
WSA to the Coast Guard, as these submissions happen several years 
before the facility begins operations. The Paperwork Reduction Act will 
not apply to this requirement as the Coast Guard anticipates only two 
new LNG

[[Page 5687]]

import/export facilities per year will be subject to this 
requirement.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Paperwork Reduction Act applies to collections of 
information using identical questions posed to, or reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons per year. 
See 5 CFR 1320.3(c), and Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum 
for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent 
Regulatory Agencies, dated April 7, 2010, at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this 
rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
    You are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has not 
yet completed its review of this collection. Therefore, we are not 
making Sec.  127.008 effective until OMB completes action on our 
information collection request, at which time we will publish a Federal 
Register notice describing OMB's action and, if OMB grants approval, 
notifying you when Sec.  127.008 takes effect.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132. Our analysis follows.
    This rule, with respect to the LOI, WSA, and ORA submission 
requirements and COTP approval (33 CFR 127.007, 127.008, 127.009, 
127.015, and 127.017), does not conflict with State interests. They are 
procedural requirements for the Coast Guard's own safety and security 
risk analysis, approval, and appeal process of a new, modified, or 
reactivated facility and its attendant LNG transfer operations. As it 
relates to other requirements imposed by individual States, or their 
political subdivisions, the submission and approval process for the 
construction of a new structure will be unaffected by this rule.
    Moreover, with respect to LNG transfer operations that may be 
included in the LOI, WSA, and ORA submissions, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 
70011(b)(1), Congress has expressly authorized the establishment of 
``procedures, measures and standards for the handling, loading, 
unloading, storage, stowage and movement on a structure of explosives 
or other dangerous articles and substances, including oil or hazardous 
material.'' The Coast Guard affirmatively preempts any State rules 
related to these procedures, measures, and standards. See the Supreme 
Court's decision in United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109-110 
(2000).
    Regarding the updates of technical standards referenced in 33 CFR 
part 127, it is Congress's express intent that, with respect to 
waterfront structures, States retain the power to regulate to higher 
standards than those promulgated by the Coast Guard. As stated in 46 
U.S.C. 70011(c), ``State Law.--Nothing in this section, with respect to 
structures, prohibits a State or political subdivision thereof from 
prescribing higher safety equipment or safety standards than those that 
may be prescribed by regulations under this section.'' Thus, Congress 
has made clear that the Federal standards promulgated under this 
section establish the uniform minimum standards of the United States, 
but individual States are entitled to impose higher safety equipment 
requirements or higher safety standards for structures within their 
jurisdiction.
    Therefore, other than with respect to structures as noted above, 
because the States may not regulate within these categories where such 
regulation conflicts with Federal requirements, this rule is consistent 
with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements 
described in Executive Order 13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result 
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This 
rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), 
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test 
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule incorporates by reference the following new voluntary 
consensus standards:
     Det Norske Veritas (DNV), DNVGL-RP-G105, Recommended 
Practice, Development and operation of liquefied natural gas bunkering 
facilities, October 2015 Edition. This standard provides guidance to 
the industry on the developmental, organizational, technical, 
functional, and operational issues of LNG bunkering (fueling) 
facilities in order to ensure global

[[Page 5688]]

compatibility and secure a high level of safety, integrity, and 
reliability. The DNVGL-RP-G105 standard was selected because it aligns 
with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), (``ISO/
TS 18683''), discussed below. Both of these standards provide guidance 
to industry on conducting risk assessments that are focused on 
providing LNG as a marine fuel (bunkering operations).
     International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 
(``ISO/TS 18683''), Guidelines for systems and installations for supply 
of LNG as fuel to ships, First Edition, January 15, 2015. This standard 
gives guidance on the minimum requirements for the design and operation 
of the LNG bunkering (fueling) facility, including the interface 
between the LNG supply facilities and receiving ships.
     ISO 28460:2010(E), (``ISO 28460''), Petroleum and natural 
gas industries--Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas--
Ship-to-shore interface and port operations, First edition, December 
15, 2010. This standard specifies the requirements for ship, terminal, 
and port service providers to ensure the safe transit of an LNG carrier 
through the port area and the safe and efficient transfer of its cargo.
    This rule incorporates by reference the following updated voluntary 
consensus standards:
     American Petroleum Institute (API), API Recommended 
Practice 2003, (``API RP 2003'') Protection Against Ignitions Arising 
Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth Edition, September 
2015. This standard presents the current state of knowledge and 
technology in the fields of static electricity and stray currents 
applicable to the prevention of hydrocarbon ignition in the petroleum 
industry, based on both scientific research and practical experience.
     The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ASME 
B16.5-2020, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS \1/2\ through NPS 24 
Metric/Inch Standard, Issued January 29, 2021. This standard covers 
pressure-temperature ratings, materials, dimensions, tolerances, 
marking, testing, and methods of designating openings for pipe flanges 
and flanged fittings.
     ASME B31.3-2020, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure 
Piping, B31, Issued June 18, 2021. This standard contains requirements 
for piping typically found in petroleum refineries; chemical, 
pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic plants; 
and related processing plants and terminals. It covers materials and 
components, design, fabrication, assembly, erection, examination, 
inspection, and testing of piping.
     ASTM International, ASTM E119-20, Standard Test Methods 
for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, approved May 1, 
2020. This standard provides methods of fire tests applicable to 
assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural 
materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls, partitions, 
columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies 
for floors and roofs. This standard also applies to other assemblies 
and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a 
finished building.
     ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Specification 
for International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, 
approved December 1, 2019, published January 2020. This standard covers 
the specifications for the design and manufacture of international 
shore connections used with marine firefighting systems during an 
emergency when a stricken ship has a system failure.
     International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC 
60079-29-1, Explosive atmospheres--Part 29-1: Gas detectors--
Performance requirements of detectors for flammable gases, Edition 2.0, 
July 2016. This standard specifies general requirements for 
construction, testing, and performance, and describes the test methods 
that apply to portable, transportable, and fixed apparatus for the 
detection and measurement of flammable gas or vapor concentrations with 
air.
     National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), NFPA 10, 
Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective 
August 21, 2017. This standard applies to the selection, installation, 
inspection, maintenance, recharging, and testing of portable 
extinguishing equipment and Class D extinguishing agents.
     NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 
Edition, effective September 6, 2017. This standard applies to the 
storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids, 
including waste liquids.
     NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, 
Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2018. 
This standard covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life, and 
loss of property from fire or explosion as a result of hot work.
     NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and 
Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective 
November 25, 2018. This standard provides minimum fire protection, 
safety, and related requirements for the location, design, 
construction, security, operation, and maintenance of LNG plants.
     NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, effective 
August 25, 2019. The provisions of this standard apply to the design, 
modification, construction, inspection, maintenance, and testing of 
electrical systems, installations, and equipment.
    The list of these standards and the locations where these standards 
are available is found in Sec.  127.003.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing 
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does 
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. A final Record of Environmental Consideration supporting 
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on 
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This 
rule is categorically excluded under paragraphs A3 and L54 in Appendix 
A, Table 1 of DHS Directive Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 
1.\35\ Paragraph A3 pertains to promulgation of rules and other 
guidance documents that interpret or amend existing regulations without 
changing its environmental effect. Paragraph L54 pertains to 
regulations that are editorial or procedural. This rule promotes the 
Coast Guard's maritime safety and Ports and waterway security missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127

    Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Security measures.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 127 as follows:

[[Page 5689]]

PART 127--WATERFRONT FACILITIES HANDLING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS AND 
LIQUEFIED HAZARDOUS GAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 127 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1504(j)(2); 46 U.S.C. 70011 and 70034; 46 
U.S.C. Chapter 701; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2, 
paragraph (II)(92)(a).

0
2. Amend Sec.  127.001 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``existing'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (f).
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  127.001  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d), and 127.019(b) of subpart A 
of this part apply to the marine transfer area for LNG of each inactive 
facility.
* * * * *
    (f) Waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed, 
expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after March 4, 2022, are 
required to comply with the applicable standards referenced in Sec.  
127.003. All other facilities, unless expanded or modified in 
accordance with this part, are required to meet previously applicable 
standards but may request to apply a later edition of the standards in 
accordance with Sec.  127.017.

0
3. Revise Sec.  127.003 to read as follows:

Sec.  127.003  Incorporation by reference.

    Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with 
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that 
specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a document in 
the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. 
All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast 
Guard, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), 2703 
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, 
202-372-1410, and is available from the sources listed in the following 
paragraphs. It is also available for inspection at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected] or 
go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 
(See Sec.  127.017 for alternative compliance methods.)
    (a) American Petroleum Institute (API), 200 Massachusetts Avenue 
NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001-5571, 202-682-8000, http://www.api.org.
    (1) API Recommended Practice 2003 (``API RP 2003''), Protection 
Against Ignitions Arising Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, 
Eighth Edition, September 2015, for Sec.  127.1101(h).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park 
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 800-843-2763, https://www.asme.org.
    (1) ASME B16.5-2020, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS \1/2\ 
Through NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard, Issued January 29, 2021, for Sec.  
127.1102(a).
    (2) ASME B31.3-2020, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, 
B31, Issued June 18, 2021, for Sec.  127.1101(a).
    (c) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, 610-832-9500, https://www.astm.org.
    (1) ASTM E119-20, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building 
Construction and Materials, approved May 1, 2020, for Sec.  127.005.
    (2) ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Specification for 
International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, approved 
December 1, 2019, for Sec. Sec.  127.611 and 127.1511.
    (d) Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Veritasveien 1, 1363 H[oslash]vik 
Norway, +47 6757 9900, https://www.dnv.com.
    (1) DNVGL-RP-G105, Recommended Practice, Development and operation 
of liquefied natural gas bunkering facilities, October 2015 Edition, 
for Sec.  127.008(d).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central 
Office, 3 rue de Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131, CH 1211, Geneva 20, 
Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, https://www.iec.ch.
    (1) IEC 60079-29-1, Explosive atmospheres--Part 29-1: Gas 
detectors--Performance requirements of detectors for flammable gases, 
Edition 2.0, July 2016, for Sec.  127.1203(a).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (f) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Chemin de 
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 
11, https://www.iso.org.
    (1) ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), (``ISO/TS 18683''), Guidelines for 
systems and installations for supply of LNG as fuel to ships, First 
Edition, January 15, 2015, for Sec.  127.008(d)(1).
    (2) ISO 28460:2010(E), (``ISO 28460''), Petroleum and natural gas 
industries--Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas--Ship-
to-shore interface and port operations, First edition, December 15, 
2010, for Sec.  127.008(d)(2).
    (g) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch 
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 800-344-3555, https://www.nfpa.org.
    (1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 
Edition, effective August 21, 2017, for Sec. Sec.  127.603(a) and 
127.1503.
    (2) NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 Edition, 
effective September 6, 2017, for Sec. Sec.  127.313(b) and 127.1313(b).
    (3) NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, 
and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2018, for 
Sec. Sec.  127.405(b) and 127.1405(b).
    (4) NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of 
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective November 25, 2018, 
for Sec. Sec.  127.008(d), 127. 101, 127.201(b) and (c), 127.405(a) and 
(b), and 127.603(a).
    (5) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, effective 
August 25, 2019, for Sec. Sec.  127.107(a) and (c), 127.201(c), and 
127.1107.

0
4. In Sec.  127.005, revise the definitions of ``Facility'' and ``Fire 
endurance rating'' and add a definition for ``LNG fuel facility'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  127.005  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Facility means either a waterfront facility handling LHG or a 
waterfront facility handling LNG, and includes LNG fuel facilities.
    Fire endurance rating means the duration for which an assembly or 
structural unit will contain a fire or retain structural integrity when 
exposed to the temperatures specified in the standard time-temperature 
curve in ASTM E119-20 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003).
* * * * *
    LNG fuel facility means a waterfront facility that handles LNG for 
the sole purpose of providing LNG from shore-based structures to 
vessels for use as a marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or 
receive LNG from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  127.007 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, and paragraphs (a), (b), and (e); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

[[Page 5690]]

Sec.  127.007  Letter of intent and waterway suitability assessment for 
waterfront facilities handling LNG or LHG.

    (a) An owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling 
LNG or LHG, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand 
marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where 
the construction or expansion will result in an increase in the size or 
frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with 
a facility, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Captain of the 
Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. 
The LOI must meet the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator of an LNG facility must submit the LOI to 
the COTP no later than the date that the owner or operator files a pre-
filing request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157, but, in all cases, at least 1 year 
prior to the start of construction. The LOI must include the nation of 
registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of the officers and 
crew serving on board, vessels transporting LNG that are reasonably 
anticipated to be servicing the LNG facility.
    (2) The owner or operator of an LHG facility must submit the LOI to 
the COTP no later than the date that the owner or operator files with 
the Federal or State agency having jurisdiction, but, in all cases, at 
least 1 year prior to the start of construction.
    (b) An owner or operator intending to reactivate an inactive 
facility must submit an LOI that meets paragraph (c) of this section to 
the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
    (1) The owner or operator of an LNG facility must submit the LOI to 
the COTP no later than the date the owner or operator files a pre-
filing request with FERC under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157, but, in all 
cases, at least 1 year prior to the start of LNG transfer operations.
    (2) The owner or operator of an LHG facility must submit the LOI to 
the COTP no later than the date the owner or operator files with the 
Federal or State agency having jurisdiction, but, in all cases, at 
least 1 year prior to the start of LHG transfer operations.
* * * * *
    (e) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG or LHG 
facility, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand 
marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where 
the construction or expansion will result in an increase in the size or 
frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with 
a facility, must file or update as appropriate a waterway suitability 
assessment (WSA) with the COTP of the zone in which the facility is or 
will be located. The WSA must consist of a Preliminary WSA and a 
Follow-on WSA. A COTP may request additional information during review 
of the Preliminary WSA or Follow-on WSA.
* * * * *
    (i) An owner or operator intending to construct a new LNG fuel 
facility or modify any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG 
fuel facility, may comply with Sec.  127.008 in lieu of meeting the 
requirements in this section.

0
6. Add Sec.  127.008 to read as follows:

Sec.  127.008  Letter of intent and operational risk assessment for LNG 
fuel facilities.

    (a) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG fuel 
facility, modify construction of any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate 
an inactive LNG fuel facility electing to complete an operational risk 
assessment (ORA) in lieu of a WSA as outlined in Sec.  127.007, must 
submit an LOI and ORA to the COTP of the zone in which the LNG fuel 
facility is or will be located at least 1 year prior to the start of 
LNG transfer operations.
    (b) Each LOI must contain the information in Sec.  127.007(c)(1) 
through (c)(5).
    (c) The owner or operator who submits an LOI under paragraph (a) of 
this section must notify the COTP in writing within 15 days of any of 
the following:
    (1) There is any change in the information submitted under 
paragraph (b) of this section; or
    (2) No LNG fuel transfer operations are scheduled within the next 
12 months.
    (d) The ORA required by paragraph (a) must:
    (1) Be carried out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO/TS 18683 and 
Appendix D of DNVGL-RP-G105; or Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A (all 
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003); or other industry 
developed risk assessment method acceptable to the Office of Operating 
and Environmental Standards, Commandant (CG-OES); and
    (2) Consider possible factors affecting the ship/shore interface 
and port operations described in Section 6 of ISO 28460 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  127.003).

0
7. In Sec.  127.009, revise paragraph (a) introductory text and 
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  127.009  Letter of recommendation.

    (a) After the COTP receives the information and analyses required 
by Sec.  127.007 or Sec.  127.008, the COTP issues a Letter of 
Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or 
LHG marine traffic or the operational safety and security of the LNG 
fuel facility to the Federal, State, or local government agencies 
having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation, and, at 
the same time, sends a copy to the owner or operator, based on the--
    (1) Information submitted under Sec.  127.007 or Sec.  127.008;
* * * * *

Sec.  127.011  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  127.011 by removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in 
its place, the word ``must''.

0
9. In Sec.  127.015, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  127.015  Appeals.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Appeal that ruling in writing to the Assistant Commandant for 
Prevention Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, (CG-5P), 2703 Martin Luther King 
Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; and
* * * * *
    (d) The Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy issues a ruling 
after reviewing the appeal submitted under paragraph (c) of this 
section, which is final agency action.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  127.017, revise the paragraph (a) introductory text to 
read as follows:

Sec.  127.017  Alternatives.

    (a) The COTP may allow alternative procedures, methods, or 
equipment standards, including alternatives to standards listed in 
Sec.  127.003, to be used by an operator instead of any requirements in 
this part if--
* * * * *

0
11. Revise Sec.  127.101 to read as follows:

Sec.  127.101  Design and construction: General.

    The marine transfer area for LNG must meet the following criteria 
in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003):
    (a) Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.7;
    (b) Chapter 6, Section 6.7;
    (c) Chapter 10;
    (d) Chapter 11, except Sections 11.9, and 11.10;
    (e) Chapter 12;
    (f) Chapter 15, except Sections 15.4 and 15.6; and
    (g) Annex B.

[[Page 5691]]

0
12. In Sec.  127.107, revise paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  127.107  Electrical power systems.

    (a) The electrical power system must have a power source and a 
separate emergency power source, so that failure of one source does not 
affect the capability of the other source. The system must meet NFPA 70 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003).
* * * * *
    (c) If an auxiliary generator is used as an emergency power source, 
it must meet Section 700.12 of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  127.003).

0
13. In Sec.  127.201, revise paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(1) and (2) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  127.201  Sensing and alarm systems.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Meet Section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  127.003).
    (c) * * *
    (1) Be in each enclosed or covered Class I, Division 1, hazardous 
location defined in Section 500.5(B)(1) of NFPA 70 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  127.003) and each area in which flammable or 
combustible material is stored; and
    (2) Meet Section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  127.003).

Sec.  127.301  [Amended]

0
14. In Sec.  127.301(b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, 
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.311  [Amended]

0
15. In Sec.  127.311(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.313  [Amended]

0
16. Amend Sec.  127.313 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in its 
place, the word ``must''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing the text ``Chapter 4 of NFPA 30'' and 
adding, in its place, the text ``NFPA 30 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.315  [Amended]

0
17. In Sec.  127.315 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.317  [Amended]

0
18. In Sec.  127.317(a) and (b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it 
appears, and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.319  [Amended]

0
19. In Sec.  127.319(a) and (b), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it 
appears and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.321  [Amended]

0
20. In Sec.  127.321, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and 
add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.401  [Amended]

0
21. In Sec.  127.401, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.403  [Amended]

0
22. In Sec.  127.403, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``must''.

0
23. In Sec.  127.405, revise the introductory text and paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  127.405  Repairs.

    The operator must ensure that--
    (a) * * *
    (1) The equipment continues to meet the applicable requirements in 
this subpart and in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
127.003); and
* * * * *
    (b) Welding is done in accordance with NFPA 51B and Section 10.4.3 
of NFPA 59A (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003).

Sec.  127.407  [Amended]

0
24. In Sec.  127.407(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.409  [Amended]

0
25. In Sec.  127.409(a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``must''.

0
26. In Sec.  127.603, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  127.603  Portable fire extinguishers.

* * * * *
    (a) Portable fire extinguishers that meet Section 16.6.1 of NFPA 
59A and Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
127.003); and
* * * * *

 Sec.  127.611  [Amended]

0
27. In Sec.  127.611, remove the text ``ASTM F 1121'' and add, in its 
place, the text ``ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019)''.

Sec.  127.613  [Amended]

0
28. In Sec.  127.613, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.615  [Amended]

0
29. In Sec.  127.615, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.617  [Amended]

0
30. In Sec.  127.617, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``must''.

Sec. Sec.  127.701 through 127.711  [Removed]

0
31. Remove Sec. Sec.  127.701 through 127.711, including the 
undesignated center heading ``Security'' that precedes Sec.  127.701.

Sec.  127.1101  [Amended]

0
32. Amend Sec.  127.1101 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the text ``ASME B31.3'' and adding, in 
its place, the text ``ASME B31.3-2020 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  127.003)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (h), after the text ``API RP 2003'' adding the text 
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.1102  [Amended]

0
33. In Sec.  127.1102(a)(4)(ii), remove the text ``ANSI B16.5'' and 
add, in its place, the text ``ASME B16.5-2020 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.1103  [Amended]

0
34. In Sec.  127.1103, remove the word ``existing'' wherever it 
appears.

Sec.  127.1105  [Amended]

0
35. In Sec.  127.1105 introductory text, remove the word ``existing''.

Sec.  127.1107  [Amended]

0
36. In Sec.  127.1107, after the text ``NFPA 70'' add the text 
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.1203  [Amended]

0
37. In Sec.  127.1203(a), remove the text ``ANSI S12.13, Part I'' and 
add, in its place, the text ``IEC 60079-29-1 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.1207  [Amended]

0
38. In Sec.  127.1207(c), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1301  [Amended]

0
39. In Sec.  127.1301(b), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``must''.

[[Page 5692]]

Sec.  127.1302  [Amended]

0
40. In Sec.  127.1302(a) introductory text and (c), remove the word 
``shall'' wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word 
``must''.

Sec.  127.1311  [Amended]

0
41. In Sec.  127.1311, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, 
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1313  [Amended]

0
42. Amend Sec.  127.1313 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``must''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b),
0
i. Remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, the word ``must''; 
and
0
ii. Remove the text, ``Chapter 4 of NFPA 30''; and add, in its place 
the text ``NFPA 30 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.1315  [Amended]

0
43. In Sec.  127.1315 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1317  [Amended]

0
44. In Sec.  127.1317(a), (d), and (e), remove the word ``shall'' 
wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1319  [Amended]

0
45. In Sec.  127.1319, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, 
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1321  [Amended]

0
46. In Sec.  127.1321, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, 
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1325  [Amended]

0
47. In Sec.  127.1325 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1401  [Amended]

0
48. In Sec.  127.1401, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1403  [Amended]

0
49. In Sec.  127.1403, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, 
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1405  [Amended]

0
50. Amend Sec.  127.1405 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``must'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the word ``and''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b), after the text ``NFPA 51B'', add the text 
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.1407  [Amended]

0
51. In Sec.  127.1407(a) introductory text and paragraphs (c), (d), 
(e), and (f), remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, and add, 
in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1409  [Amended]

0
52. In Sec.  127.1409, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears, 
and add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1501  [Amended]

0
53. In Sec.  127.1501(a), delete the word ``existing.''

Sec.  127.1503  [Amended]

0
54. In Sec.  127.1503, after the text ``NFPA 10'', add the text 
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  127.003)''.

Sec.  127.1511  [Amended]

0
55. In Sec.  127.1511, remove the text ``ASTM F 1121'' and add, in its 
place, the text ``ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019)''.

Sec.  127.1601  [Amended]

0
56. In Sec.  127.1601 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1603  [Amended]

0
57. In Sec.  127.1603 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``must''.

Sec.  127.1605  [Amended]

0
58. In Sec.  127.1605 introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``must''.

    Dated: January 24, 2022.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-01888 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P