Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/11/28/2012-28794/reconsideration-of-letters-of-recommendation-for-waterfront-facilities-handling-lng-and-lhg
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 09:41:36
Document Index: 787688342

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009127', 'art 127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', 'art 127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', 'art 127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127', '§\u2009127']

:: Reconsideration of Letters of Recommendation for Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG and LHG
70886-70891
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-28794
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended
U.S.C. United States Code II. Regulatory History
Several issued LORs have invited the recipient to request reconsideration of the LOR pursuant to 33 CFR 127.015, which provides that “[a]ny person directly affected by an action taken under this part may request reconsideration by the Coast Guard officer responsible for that action.” The process set forth in § 127.015 is the same that an owner or operator would use to appeal agency actions described elsewhere in Part 127, such as a COTP's Order to suspend operations. The use of § 127.015 to request reconsideration of LORs, however, has led to confusion about the nature and proper role of the LOR. This is in part because use of the words “action” and “final agency action” in § 127.015 create confusion as to whether the LOR is an agency action for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). While we believe LORs should be subject to internal Coast Guard review, we did not intend to suggest that an LOR is an agency action, or that the LOR conveys a right or obligation.
As discussed above, we believe that some of the past confusion regarding the nature of LORs stems from the Coast Guard's use of 33 CFR 127.015 for LOR reconsiderations. The process in § 127.015 is designed for appeals of agency actions taken under the authority of Part 127,[1] and using that same process for internal reconsideration of LORs inadvertently caused confusion between the two. In particular, § 127.015 applies to “[a]ny person directly affected by an action taken under this part,” and using that language in reference to an unenforceable recommendation is inapt.
The Coast Guard seeks to resolve the resulting confusion and, further, believes the process in § 127.015 is inappropriately complicated and lengthy in light of the LOR's role as a recommendation to another agency in the context of that agency's permitting process. The LOR is intended to inform the jurisdictional agency's process, and therefore should be available to the jurisdictional agency early in that process. A reconsideration process that results in revisions to the LOR after the jurisdictional agency's decision does not serve the purpose of the LOR.
The Coast Guard did change the rule by adding the words “Indian tribal government” to the list of entities that may request reconsideration of the LOR pursuant to the revised § 127.009(c), with conforming changes in revised § 127.009(d). As we explained in our NPRM, new § 127.009(c) is intended to provide opportunity for additional discussion with governmental entities in the vicinity of the facility who may have unique information about the safety and security of the waterway (76 FR 78190). In our NPRM we provided notice and opportunity for public comment on this optional participation of local government entities in the reconsideration process. Like State and local governments, Indian tribal governments in the vicinity of a facility may be able to provide unique information regarding safety and security issues affecting the suitability of certain waterways, and logically would be included among the entities that may choose to request reconsideration. Adding Indian tribal governments to the list of entities will avoid any ambiguity as to their inclusion, and does not alter the intent or expected effect of the rule.
Separately, the Coast Guard slightly reworded new § 127.010(c)(1) for clarity. Both changes are nonsubstantive clarifications for which prior notice and public comment is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
We do not expect this rule to impose new regulatory costs on the LNG/LHG industry because an LNG or LHG facility owner or operator and State, local, or Indian tribal government in the vicinity of the facility will only request reconsideration if it does not agree with the recommendation. The option to request reconsideration of an LOR has been an industry practice for several years. Since 2007, there has been an average of about three requests for reconsiderations annually. As previously discussed, this rule replaces the existing process for reconsideration with the process in new § 127.010, and applies to new LORs issued after the effective date of the rule, not to LORs already issued. For these reasons, no change in either the burden or the frequency of requests is projected as a result of this rulemaking. Although market conditions may change in the future, the Coast Guard does not have any data to indicate the receipt of new requests for reconsideration of LORs within the foreseeable future.
1. The authority citation for part 127 continues to read as follows: Authority:
2. Revise § 127.009 to read as follows: § 127.009 Letter of recommendation.
(c) The owner or operator, or a State, local, or Indian tribal government in the vicinity of the facility, may request reconsideration as set forth in § 127.010.
(e) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section apply to LORs issued after December 28, 2012. For LORs issued prior to that date, persons requesting reconsideration must follow the process set forth in § 127.015.
3. Add § 127.010 to read as follows: § 127.010 Reconsideration of the Letter of Recommendation.
The Coast Guard does take agency action with respect to LNG and LHG facilities when it enforces its rules addressing the operation, maintenance, personnel training, firefighting, and security of the marine transfer area of waterfront facilities that handle LNG or LHG cargos, and when the COTP issues an Order directing vessel operations. See the detailed discussion in the NPRM (76 FR 78189).