Deepwater Ports

Federal RegisterApr 9, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 148, 149, and 150

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0061]

RIN 1625-AB92

Deepwater Ports

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes revisions to its regulations for the licensing, construction, design, equipment, and operation of deepwater ports, which are offshore fixed or floating structures, other than vessels, used as ports or terminals for the import or export of oil and natural gas. The proposed revisions would provide additional information, clarify existing regulations, provide additional regulatory flexibility, and add new requirements to ensure safety. The proposed rule would not affect the license to operate of any existing deepwater port, nor would it result in the licensing of any new deepwater port. This proposed rule furthers the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.

DATES:

Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via

http://www.regulations.gov

on or before July 8, 2015 or must reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0061 using any one of the following methods:

(1)

Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

(2)

Fax:

202-493-2251.

(3)

Mail:

Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(4)

Hand delivery:

Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Kevin Tone, Deepwater Ports Standards Division (CG-OES-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1441, email

Kevin.P.Tone@uscg.mil.

If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

C. Privacy Act

D. Public Meeting

II. Abbreviations

III. Executive Summary

IV. Background

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

VI. Regulatory Analyses

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Small Entities

C. Assistance for Small Entities

D. Collection of Information

E. Federalism

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

G. Taking of Private Property

H. Civil Justice Reform

I. Protection of Children

J. Indian Tribal Governments

K. Energy Effects

L. Technical Standards

M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to

http://www.regulations.gov

and will include any personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0061), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to

http://www.regulations.gov,

and follow the instructions on that Web site. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8

1/2

by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to

http://www.regulations.gov,

and follow the instructions on that Web site. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the

Federal Register

(73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under

ADDRESSES

. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we decide to hold a public meeting, we will announce its time and place in a later notice in the

Federal Register

II. Abbreviations

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

CE Certifying Entity

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COA Certificate of Adequacy

COTP Captain of the Port

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DNV Det Norske Veritas

DOI Department of the Interior

DWPA Deepwater Port Act of 1974

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

E.O. Executive Order

FR Federal Register

FWS National Fish and Wildlife Service

HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port

MARAD Maritime Administration

MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating to that Convention

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSU Marine Safety Unit

MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

OCMI Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PLEM Pipeline End Manifold

PMMP Prevention, Monitoring and Mitigation Program

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Pub. L. Public Law

ROD Record of Decision

SMS Safety Management System

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

SPM-NGTS Single Point Mooring-Natural Gas Transfer System

SPM-OTS Single Point Mooring-Oil Transfer System

STL buoy Submerged turret loading buoy

§ Section symbol

U.S.C. United States Code

III. Executive Summary

The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise existing Coast Guard regulations for deepwater ports. A deepwater port is a fixed or floating manmade structure, or a group of structures, other than a vessel, located beyond State seaward boundaries and used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, and further handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to or from any State.

The proposed revisions would expedite the deepwater port license application process by capitalizing on lessons learned from past license applications. They would also address recent changes in the natural gas industry by allowing the use of deepwater ports as export facilities.

See

33 U.S.C. 1502(9).

The legal basis of this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1504(a) and (b), which require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to implement the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (DWPA).

Before 2003, the Coast Guard operated under the Department of Transportation, and the Secretary of Transportation's authority under § 1504 was delegated to the Coast Guard in 49 CFR 1.46. When the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, “the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating” to the Coast Guard, including the Secretary of Transportation's authority relating to deepwater ports, also were transferred to DHS.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated the Secretary's regulatory authority under 33 U.S.C. 1504 to the Coast Guard.

The Secretary of Transportation's authority to license deepwater ports

is delegated

to the Maritime Administrator.

33 U.S.C. 1501

et seq.

See

6 U.S.C. 468(b).

See

DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(75).

33 U.S.C. 1503(b).

49 CFR 1.93(h).

This NPRM proposes numerous small revisions to a complex regulatory scheme. Collectively, these revisions will provide applicants with additional information and clarity, additional regulatory flexibility, and new requirements to ensure safety. Above all, the revisions should help applicants assemble more complete applications, to help them meet the Coast Guard's regulatory requirements within the strict time limitations mandated by the DWPA and without costly suspensions of the licensing process. The proposed rule would not affect the license to operate of any existing deepwater port, nor would it result in the licensing of any new deepwater port.

This NPRM would impose no new regulatory costs and should help future license applicants receive more efficient, faster processing of their applications. Some proposed revisions may give applicants more flexibility than they have under current regulations. Finally, some applicants may benefit from proposed revisions that would facilitate the licensing of export deepwater ports.

IV. Background

Deepwater ports are oil or natural gas import or export facilities,

not

exploration, development, or production facilities like drilling rigs.

Deepwater ports are subject to the DWPA. When the DWPA was first enacted, it applied only to deepwater ports handling oil imports. Section 106 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002

(MTSA) amended the DWPA to apply to natural gas imports as well. Section 312 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012

further amended the DWPA so that it now also authorizes deepwater ports for oil or natural gas exports. MARAD must license each deepwater port before it can be built and commissioned and begin operations, but MARAD consults the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies,

as well as affected State governments, before issuing licenses. License applications are jointly processed by the Coast Guard and MARAD, and we conduct the necessary analysis to determine whether a proposed deepwater port will comply with the DWPA and to ensure compliance with other applicable laws, in particular the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Also, the Coast Guard provides the regulatory framework governing the application and licensing process as well as the design, construction, equipment, and operation of deepwater ports. Our deepwater port regulations in 33 CFR subchapter NN (parts 148, 149, and 150) were first issued in 1975, and were extensively revised in 2004 and 2006 to reflect the 2002 extension of the DWPA to natural gas.

See

33 CFR 140.10 (excluding deepwater ports from the definition of an Outer Continental Shelf facility).

Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064.

Public Law 112-213, 126 Stat. 1540.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) advises license applicants that: (a) In accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(5), to the extent that a proposed deepwater port's design includes subsurface storage on submerged lands of the Outer Continetal Shelf, that storage is subject to DOI's review and approval; (b) As a cooperating agency during a license application's processing, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) participate in the review of proposed deepwater ports; and (c) under BSEE regulations (30 CFR part 250, subpart J), a right-of-way granted by BSEE and a right-of-way rental amount may be required.

Since our most recent substantive revision of subchapter NN,

the Coast Guard has received eight applications to site, construct, and operate natural gas deepwater ports. Four applications were subsequently withdrawn by the applicants. Of the remaining four, two deepwater ports have been constructed, one has been issued a license to construct, and one has initial approval through a favorable Record of Decision (ROD)

from MARAD. All four were for natural gas imports. In processing these four applications, the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies have identified additional, specific types of information that are necessary to ensure a timely review of, and decision on, deepwater

port applications. During the application review process, and after the construction and operation of new deepwater ports, we gained additional insight into the technical and operational requirements that will help ensure operations are conducted efficiently and in a manner that furthers safety, security, and environmental protection. The DWPA, 33 U.S.C. 1504(g), provides a 240-day “clock” within which license applications must be processed (from publication of the notice of initial application to the final public hearing). To ensure compliance with the DWPA and NEPA, those wanting to build and operate a deepwater port must provide complex and highly technical information with their license applications. Under 33 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1), the Coast Guard has 21 days in which to determine whether an application appears to contain all the necessary information. If the application appears to be incomplete, the Coast Guard informs the applicant as to its deficiencies, and takes no further action until the deficiencies are corrected. If the application appears to be complete, the Coast Guard must publish a notice of the application and a summary of the plans in the

Federal Register

. Long after this initial determination of completeness, however, we often find that we need additional information to complete a proper analysis of the proposed deepwater port's environmental impact, and the applicant is required by 33 U.S.C 1504(c)(2)(M) to provide that information. Our regulations

make it clear that the need to obtain important additional information “stops the clock,” extending the 240-day deadline by the length of time needed to obtain the additional information.

71 FR 57644; Sep. 29, 2006.

A Record of Decision states what the agency's decision is; identifies all alternatives considered by the agency, specifies the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable; and states whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not.

See

40 CFR 1505.2.

At 33 CFR 148.107(c)(3).

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

This proposed rule draws on the lessons we have learned about efficiencies in the license application review process and in building and operating safe and efficient deepwater ports. In developing this proposed rule, we have consulted with MARAD and other Federal agencies that work with us on deepwater port issues, and we will continue this consultation as we develop a final rule.

This proposed rule would primarily clarify existing requirements or provide more information about how those requirements intersect with the requirements of other Federal agencies and State governments that have roles in the licensing and operation of deepwater ports. The intent of this proposed rule is to reduce the number of times the “clock is stopped” pursuant to our regulations, thereby reducing the time needed to reach decisions on applications. Although we propose a few new requirements, they are likely to impose no new regulatory costs because they track with industry's current behavior. We also propose several changes that should provide industry with additional regulatory flexibility. Our proposals would apply to any applications received after the effective date of the final rule. The rule would not affect the license to operate any existing deepwater port, nor would they result in the licensing of any new deepwater port.

The proposed rule aligns with directives in several Executive Orders (E.O.s). Section 3(a)(1) of E.O. 12988

requires agencies to review proposed regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, and our proposed rule will clarify ambiguities that have come to light since we last amended our current regulations. Because the proposed rule draws on lessons learned from applying our current regulations, it helps make those regulations more effective and less burdensome and is therefore in line with E.O. 13563.

In light of the recent surge in U.S. natural gas production, and now that the DWPA permits deepwater ports to export oil and natural gas, our proposed rule may also facilitate the development or conversion

of existing deepwater ports to export U.S. natural gas by clarifying the deepwater port application process and lessening the likelihood of time-consuming delays in that process. Therefore it may contribute to the job creation and economic benefits that are goals of E.O. 13605.

“Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).

“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, ”76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), § 6(b).

An application for the conversion of an existing import facility to one adapted for export would require the submission of a new application fee. The conversion application would need to address all the same issues addressed in an original application.

“Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources,” 77 FR 23107 (Apr. 17, 2012).

The changes we propose for part 148 focus on providing deepwater port license applicants with clearer information about the information we require, so that applicants will be less likely to encounter “stopped clocks.” We propose reorganizing part 149, which addresses the complex process of designing, constructing, and equipping deepwater ports. Other changes in part 149 would clarify its requirements or adapt terminology to the reality that no two deepwater ports use identical design elements. Most of the procedural changes we propose would affect the deepwater port operations requirements in part 150. In addition to clarifying part 150's requirements and providing more information, we propose changes (in line with current industry practice) that would ensure that future deepwater ports continue to meet acceptable levels of safety.

Table 1 lists each section that we propose adding or amending, and briefly explains our rationale for the proposal. It omits the nonsubstantive redesignation of specific sections as part of the reorganization of part 149, which we discuss in the table, and the nonsubstantive insertion of “but not limited to” in lists, to emphasize their non-exclusive nature.

Table 1—Changes Proposed for 33 CFR Subchapter NN

Section

Change

Nature of change

Discussion

PART 148

Revise descriptions of each agency's authority

Informational

Based on latest statutory or interagency allocation of functions. We would describe, not change, that allocation.

“Accommodation module”

Add definition

Term figures in proposed changes.

“Construction”

Revise definition

Clarify that Coast Guard oversight applies throughout the deepwater port lifecycle by emphasizing that construction applies to any activity incidental to building, repairing, or expanding a deepwater port.

“Deepwater port”

Revise definition

Align with current statutory language, which allows deepwater ports to export as well as import oil or natural gas.

“Deepwater port security plan”

Add definition

Term figures in proposed changes.

“Engineering geological survey”

Revise definition

Clarify that the necessary analysis considers all geological factors and is not limited to hydrographics. Coast Guard's experience is that the scope of this analysis has been confusing in the past.

“Flexible riser and umbilical”

Add definition

Term figures in proposed changes.

“Lease block”

Revise definition

Simplify statutory citations.

“Major conversion”

Transfer definition

Transfer from part 149 without substantive change.

“Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Commander”

Add definition

Updated Coast Guard internal organization.

“Marine site”

Revise language

Clarify meaning of “including.”

“Maritime Administration”

Revise definition

Updated MARAD information.

“Mile”

Add definition

Clarify that subchapter NN references to miles mean nautical miles.

“Operator”

Revise definition

Clarify that the operator may be the licensee's designee and not the licensee itself.

“Person in charge”

Revise definition

Clarify definition.

“PIC”

Add definition

Add separate definition to help distinguish “person in charge” from “PIC.”

“Pipeline”

Add definition

Define to distinguish portion of interest to Coast Guard from equipment regulated by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

“Pipeline end manifold”

Add definition

Define to distinguish portion of interest to Coast Guard from equipment regulated by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

“Prevention, monitoring, and mitigation program”

Add definition

Term figures in proposed changes.

“Safety zone”

Revise definition

Clarify that a deepwater port is the facility at issue.

“Service space”

Transfer definition

Transfer from part 149 without substantive change.

“Single point mooring oil transfer system”

Revise definition

Clarify and distinguish terms that are sometimes confused.

“Single point mooring natural gas transfer system”

Revise definition

Clarify and distinguish terms that are sometimes confused.

“Sleeping space”

Transfer definition

Transfer from part 149 without substantive change.

“Submerged turret loading buoy”

Add definition

Term figures in proposed changes.

“Vessel”

Revise definition

Conform to definition used in 1 U.S.C. 3.

Certifying entities (CEs)

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

Operators are currently allowed to use CEs to assist with post-licensing technical matters. We would also allow license applicants to use CEs during the application process, to help identify information gaps and resolve technical questions.

105(g)(1)(i)

Describe MARAD as acting in consultation with the Coast Guard, instead of the Coast Guard acting in concurrence with MARAD

Informational

We would more accurately reflect MARAD's lead role for matters regarding the financial responsibility of a deepwater port application.

105(g)(2)(iii)

Change “operator” to “licensee,” as the party responsible for deepwater port removal costs

Clarification

Financial liability rests with a deepwater port's licensee, not with the operator, who may be only the licensee's designee.

105(i)(1)

Change “is” to “will be”

Style

Style change.

105(j)

Provide additional information about coastal zone management

Informational

We would give license applicants more detailed information, including a reference to applicable National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulations, to help applicants more quickly establish compliance with 33 U.S.C. 1503(c)(9)'s requirement for an approved coastal zone management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

105(k)

Provide an alternative to the use of a professional surveyor

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

Delay in securing the services of a registered professional surveyor has “stopped the clock” in at least one instance. We would allow the use of others with equivalent professional competency.

105(m)(1)(i)

Revise provisions relating to fixed and floating structures

Clarification

We would delete language concerning connected actions, because it is redundant with the requirement in 33 CFR 148.105(l) to provide data for onshore storage areas, pipelines, and refineries.

105(m)(1)(iii)

Revise provisions relating to anchorages and mooring areas

Clarification

We would clarify that anchorages and mooring areas can be used during a deepwater port's construction as well as after it becomes operational.

105(m)(2)

Revise description of required reconnaissance hydrographic survey

Clarification

We would delete some survey specifications because MARAD describes the specific information it requires in the license conditions it sets for individual deepwater ports.

Allow exceptions to 5-year limit on age of data

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval, which would be granted so long as newer data is provided for any specific locations having a high degree of hydrographic variability.

105(m)(3)

Add language for meteorological and oceanographic (“MetOcean”) data

Revision

MetOcean data is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include MetOcean data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.”

105(m)(4)

Add language for vessel traffic data

Revision

Vessel traffic data is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact and for the Coast Guard's analysis of risk mitigation. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include vessel traffic data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.”

105(n)

Add language for engineering geological survey (presently soil survey) data

Revision

We would clarify that full geological information, not just soil data, is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include geological survey data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.”

Allow exceptions to 5-year limit on age of data

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval.

Provide an alternative to the use of a professional engineer

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

Delay in securing the services of a professional engineer has “stopped the clock” in at least one instance. We would allow the use of others with equivalent professional competency.

105(s)(6)(iv)

Add “regasification” to existing language

Revision

We would clarify that information about the methods the applicant expects to use in regasifying natural gas prior to transmission is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include regasification data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.”

105(t)

Add recommendation for PHMSA consultation

Informational

We would provide license applicants with additional information, and we would encourage them to consult with PHMSA, to help facilitate an applicant's ability to comply with PHMSA requirements for pipeline safety.

105(y)

Add language for risk and consequence assessment

Informational

A license applicant's risk and consequence assessment is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact and is currently subject to Coast Guard validation. We would provide additional information about methods that the Coast Guard may use to conduct that validation, including the conduct of an independent assessment by a third party selected by the Coast Guard. We would also restate the Coast Guard's existing authority under 33 CFR 148.107 to require the applicant to provide “additional information” when necessary.

105(z)

Add language for NEPA alternatives

Clarification

This paragraph currently requires license applicants to provide an environmental analysis sufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA. Under NEPA, environmental analysis must include consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to key aspects of the action being analyzed. If alternatives are not discussed in the initial license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would clarify the need to discuss alternatives in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.”

105(ff)

Add language for International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating to that Convention (MARPOL 73/78)

Clarification

A license to operate a deepwater port is granted only if it is determined that the applicant “can and will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and license conditions.” 33 U.S.C. 1503(c)(2). MARPOL, and MARPOL-implementing regulations in 33 CFR part 158, are applicable to deepwater ports, and a Certificate of Adequacy (COA) is required to demonstrate compliance with part 158. If the COA is not requested in the initial license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would clarify the need to request the Certificate in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.”

107(b)

Add references to MARAD

Clarification

We would clarify that the Coast Guard may request additional information on behalf of MARAD as well as on the Coast Guard's own behalf.

107(c)-(e)

Revise (c) and add (d) and (e), regarding “clock stoppage”

Clarification

Paragraph (c) of this section currently allows the Coast Guard to suspend the processing of a license application indefinitely (“stop the clock”) in order to obtain additional information. We would provide additional information to clarify and help applicants better understand how “stopping the clock” works. This proposed change should be read along with the proposed change to 33 CFR 148.276 and 148.283 relating to suspension and withdrawal of an application.

125(c)

Add “additional environmental analysis” to existing language

Clarification

Under 33 U.S.C. 1504(h)(1), license applicants must “reimburse the United States and the appropriate adjacent coastal State for any additional costs incurred in processing an application.” We would add, as a clarification, the need for additional environmental analysis as an example of when additional costs will be incurred. A past applicant's change in plans for the proposed deepwater port raised the potential need for additional environmental analysis.

209(a)

Remove reference to interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU)

Informational

We would delete a reference to an expired MOU that can no longer be consulted for the current list of all Federal agencies involved with deepwater ports.

211(a)

Revise language describing the need for changes in applications

Clarification

This paragraph currently requires a license applicant to promptly notify the Coast Guard of any changes to its application. We would clarify that we consider any circumstance that makes statements in the application no longer accurate to be a “change” requiring prompt notification.

211(b)

Revise language describing how changes are made in applications

Clarification

As currently worded, this paragraph may imply that any substantial change requires a license applicant to completely revise its application. We would clarify that our existing practice generally is to allow the applicant simply to amend its application to make the change.

Add language concerning NEPA scoping and additional public comment

Informational

We would inform license applicants that under NEPA and other existing laws, a substantial change in an application could trigger the need for additional NEPA scoping or additional public comment on the application.

214

Add provision for resubmission of a withdrawn or denied application

Informational

We would provide additional information about the conditions under which a license applicant can address concerns raised by its initial application and resubmit the application, with the Coast Guard waiving certain Subpart B application requirements for the re-application.

215

Redesignate (d) as (c)(5) and add “proposed deepwater” to existing language

Clarification

We would clarify that (d) is a continuation of (c) and relates to a proposed deepwater port.

217(b)-(d)

Revise description of respective Coast Guard and MARAD roles in the designation of an Adjacent Coastal State

Informational

We would state that MARAD consults with the Coast Guard, but makes the actual Adjacent Coastal State designation.

222(b)

Revise description of respective Coast Guard and MARAD roles in giving notice of Adjacent Coastal State hearings

Informational

We would clarify that MARAD, not the Coast Guard, has the existing responsibility for publishing notices of public hearings or meetings in Adjacent Coastal States.

228

Revise description of respective Coast Guard and MARAD roles with respect to formal evidentiary hearings

Informational

We would clarify that MARAD, not the Coast Guard, has the existing responsibility for any formal evidentiary hearings involving deepwater ports relating to specific and material factual issues related to the licensing of a deepwater port. Existing Coast Guard regulations, 33 CFR 148.230-148.256, provide a regulatory framework for such hearings; however, because MARAD, not the Coast Guard, is the licensing authority, we propose deleting these regulations.

276

Revise section describing the DWPA timeline for action on a license application

Informational

The revision would provide more information about the DWPA timeline for processing license applications, and about suspensions of the timeline. We informally provide this additional information today. (The revisions do not alter the statutory timeline.) This proposed change should be read along with the proposed changes to 33 CFR 148.107 and 148.283 relating to suspension and withdrawal of an application.

277(d)

Provide additional information about the time period when the Governor of an Adjacent Coastal State may transmit his or her approval or disapproval of a proposed deepwater port application

Informational

We would add more information about the existing timeline for the Governor of an Adjacent Coastal State to approve or disapprove a proposed deepwater port application.

283

Substitute provisions for treating an application as withdrawn for provisions concerning an application's suspension

Procedural change

33 CFR 148.107(c) and this section currently both provide for indefinitely suspending the processing of a license application if it is missing essential information. We would make it clear that, if there is no reasonable progress in securing the missing information, indefinite suspension may lead to the application being treated as withdrawn. This proposed change should be read along with the proposed changes to 33 CFR 148.107 and 148.276 relating to suspension.

405(c)(2)

Refer to Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) guidance

Informational

This paragraph currently requires a license applicant to give notice of certain acoustic profiling activities, which must take place “within specified limits.” We would inform applicants that those limits currently are provided by BOEM guidance, thereby making it easier for applicants to determine what limits are specified.

Subpart G

Redesignate 33 CFR 148.600 and 148.605 as subpart G of part 148

Nonsubstantive reorganization

We would give added prominence to these two sections, which have been of interest to several license applicants.

600

Provide more information about deepwater port financial liability limits under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90)

Informational

This section currently states that deepwater port financial liability limits are set in accordance with OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)). Several license applicants have requested more information, and our proposed change would provide details on the current process for setting limits.

605

Provide more information about deepwater port financial liability limits under OPA 90

Informational

This section currently refers to the provisions of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)) for adjusting a deepwater port's financial liability limit. We would respond to several requests from license applicants for more details on the current process for adjusting limits. That process, with the relevant risk and economic analysis criteria, was described in the NPRM that proposed lowering the liability limit for the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (60 FR 7652 at 7653, Feb. 8, 1995; final rule 60 FR 39849, Aug. 4, 1995).

Subpart H

Redesignate current subpart G as new subpart H of part 148

Nonsubstantive reorganization

This proposed change is necessitated by our proposed designation of 33 CFR 148.600 and 148.605 as new subpart G.

707(b)

Revise

Clarification

We would more closely align the wording of this section with terminology familiar to NEPA practitioners. We would also clarify that license applicants are currently required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans.

707(b)(1)

Provide more information about the scope of environmental evaluation

Informational

We would provide license applicants with more complete information about the scope of environmental evaluation and align wording with terminology familiar to NEPA practitioners.

715 intro

Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language

Clarification

We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans.

715(a)

Provide more information about the scope of environmental evaluation

Informational

We would provide license applicants with more complete information about the scope of environmental evaluation.

725 intro

Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language

Clarification

We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans.

730 intro

Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language

Clarification

We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans.

730(a)

Revise

Informational

This paragraph currently refers to appropriate Adjacent Coastal State agencies. We would substitute a specific cross reference to 33 CFR 148.105(j), where we propose adding detailed information about Adjacent Coastal States.

735 intro

Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language

Clarification

We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans.

737

Replace list with Web site reference

Informational

This section currently contains a lengthy and non-exclusive list of environmental statutes and E.O.s of potential interest to license applicants. We would replace that list with a reference to a Coast Guard Web site where more current information is maintained and available to the public.

PART 149

Part 149 organization

Reorganize

Nonsubstantive reorganization

We would reorganize this part, redesignating and renaming some sections and providing a more sequential structure for existing deepwater port design, construction, and equipment requirements. Subpart A would contain general information, subpart B would contain general requirements for design, construction, operations, and equipment requirements, and the remaining subparts C through F would contain specific equipment requirements.

Replace definitions with cross reference to 33 CFR 148.5

Nonsubstantive reorganization

This section currently contains 4 definitions. We would move all subchapter NN definitions to 33 CFR 148.5.

Remove

Nonsubstantive reorganization

This section currently describes the process for submitting deepwater port design or construction alterations. As part of the nonsubstantive reorganization of part 149, we would delete this section and transfer its substance to 33 CFR 149.54.

20(a) (current 610(a))

Add “or submerged turret loading (STL) buoy” to existing language

Technology update

We would insert a reference to STL buoys, which are significant deepwater port components not in existence when we last revised our regulations, and the details of the construction of which we currently require deepwater port operators to provide.

51 (current 615)

Provide for use of foreign engineers

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

We would amend paragraph (b) to allow the use of foreign engineers who may not be registered professional engineers, if they possess equivalent qualifications.

52 (current 625)

Revise (b)

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

We would insert a reference to CEs, reflecting our proposal (see table entry for 33 CFR 148.8) to allow greater use of CEs.

Add (d)

Clarification

We would add language from current 33 CFR 149.650, to clarify the existing procedure by which a license applicant works with the Coast Guard to determine which deepwater port components require classification society certification. That determination will likely be different for each deepwater port, given the potential variability between deepwater port designs. We would also add language to encourage (but not require) early coordination between the applicant and the Coast Guard, because of the potential value of early coordination for expediting the design process.

Add

Nonsubstantive reorganization

We would move the text from existing § 149.15 to the revised subpart B to consolidate requirements for design into one subpart.

Add

Informational

We would add this section for the benefit of license applicants, to provide them with more information about our existing process for reviewing and approving a deepwater port's design, construction, and commissioning.

Add

Clarification

We would add this section to clarify that our existing practice is to allow a license applicant to use certifying entities during the design and construction of a deepwater port as well as after the deepwater port is licensed, and to describe the CE's role in various phases of the deepwater port's lifespan.

63(a) (current 660(a))

Substitute “manned deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex”

Clarification

The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because all manned deepwater ports are pumping platform complexes.

64(b) (current 140(b))

Add “facilities, vessels approaching the safety zone” to existing language

Clarification

Provides clarification of who the vessel would be in communication with to ensure communications are occurring between the vessel and the shoreside facility for purposes of situational awareness.

65 intro, (b) (current 665 intro, (b))

Substitute “manned deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex”

Clarification

67(a) (current 675(a))

Substitute “Each” for “For a,” remove “each pumping platform complex,” and substitute “deepwater port” for “complex”

Clarification

The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because the one existing manned deepwater port is a pumping platform complex.

68(a) (current 680(a))

Add “manned” before “deepwater” in existing language

Clarification

We would clarify that this requirement applies only to manned deepwater ports.

70 (current 690)

Substitute “specified” for “outlined”

Clarification

The requirements are specified and are not optional, as “outlined” would imply.

77(a) (current 697(a))

Substitute “operator's” for “owner's”

Clarification

We would clarify that because the operator is in charge of day-to-day operations, the operator is responsible for maintaining all documentation.

115 (current 110)

Substitute “remotely” for “from the pumping platform complex”

Clarification

This section currently requires pipeline end manifolds to have shutoff valves that can be operated both manually and remotely from a pumping platform complex. Since not every deepwater port has a pumping platform complex, we would replace the reference to such a complex with the word “remotely.”

130(a) (current 125(a))

Substitute “marine transfer area of a deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex”

Clarification

Only the single existing manned deepwater port has a pumping platform complex. The proposed change substitutes a generic term common to manned or unmanned deepwater ports.

135 (current 130)

In (b) introductory language add “described in paragraph (a) of this section”

Clarification

Reference to paragraph (a) of same section.

In (b)(1) and (b)(2) substitute “marine transfer area of a deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex”

Clarification

The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because all marine transfer areas are pumping platform complexes. Revised terminology provides greater clarity.

In (b)(2) add “described”

Clarification

Clarification and reference to paragraph (b)(3) of the section.

206

Add

Harmonization

We would adapt existing lifesaving equipment requirements for mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs).

302 (current 402)

Revise

Clarification

We would transfer qualifying language from the end to the beginning of the section.

303 (current 403)

Revise heading

Clarification

We would revise the heading to clarify who needs the information provided by this section.

304 (current 404)

Revise heading

Clarification

We would revise the heading to clarify who needs the information provided by this section.

Current 306-315

Remove

Nonsubstantive reorganization

These sections currently describe survival craft and rescue boat requirements. As part of the nonsubstantive reorganization of part 149, we would delete these sections and transfer their substance to 33 CFR part 149, subpart D.

315(a) (current 415(a))

Substitute “manned deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex”

Clarification

410(a) (current 510(a))

Substitute “Coast Guard District Commander in the area where the deepwater port will be built” for “Commandant (CG-5P)”

Clarification

We would clarify that the District Commander approves applications to establish a private aid to navigation.

480(a) (current 580(a))

Remove “of a pumping platform complex”

Clarification

The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo.

485(a) (current 585(a))

Substitute “deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex”

Clarification

650

Remove

Clarification; Nonsubstantive reorganization

We would transfer the substance of this provision to § 149.52(d), and revise it to apply to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo.

PART 150

In (b), remove reference to part 148 approval of manuals

Correction

We would remove this incorrect reference. Approval of manuals is addressed in part 150.

Revise (c) and redesignate (d) and (e)

Clarification

We would remove existing (c) because the process is described in detail in proposed § 150.25. Existing (d) and (e) would be redesignated as (c) and (d), respectively.

Add new (e)

Clarification

The proposed change would make explicit in our regulations that the Coast Guard's current practice is to review the operations manual every five years, in conjunction with our review of the environmental impact statement (EIS) (the Council on Environmental Quality recommends that, as a rule of thumb, the EIS be carefully reexamined no later than once every five years—

see https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/30-40.HTM#32

In (i)(4)(vii), substitute “zones and areas described under subpart J of this part” for “a safety zone, area to be avoided, and anchorage area”

Clarification

We would clarify that the procedures described must account for any protective zone or area that could apply, regardless of a deepwater port's design or cargo.

Add new (o)

Informational

Deepwater ports are ports subject to U.S. jurisdiction and used by oceangoing tankers greater than 400 gross tons, and as such their operators must comply with 33 CFR 158.135, which requires ports to hold certificates of adequacy (or waivers), evidencing their capability to receive regulated substances. For informational purposes, we would restate that requirement here.

Revise (y) (current (x))

Informational

Under 33 CFR 106.410 and 106.415, security plans must be periodically audited, and reviewed every 5 years by the Coast Guard. For informational purposes, we would restate those requirements here.

Revise (bb) (current (aa))

Clarification

This change would reflect MARAD's current policy, requiring each deepwater port to maintain a prevention, monitoring, and mitigation program (PMMP) as a license condition.

Add (cc)

Clarification

MARAD currently requires, as a license condition, each deepwater port to comply with 49 CFR 192.605 and with other applicable PHMSA regulations in 49 CFR parts 190-199. We would make that requirement explicit in our regulations.

Revise heading

Clarification

We would amend for better clarity.

Add (c)(1)

Clarification

We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual.

Revise (c)(2)(current (d))

Clarification

We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual.

Revise (e)(current (f))

Clarification

We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual.

Add new (f)

Clarification

We would make explicit the existing authority of other Federal agencies to propose operations manual amendments to the Coast Guard.

Revise

Clarification

We would update Coast Guard organizational terminology and clarify what our current process is for coordinating with other Federal agencies.

Revise

Informational

Updated Coast Guard internal organization.

Add paragraph (b)

Nonsubstantive reorganization

We would consolidate current 33 CFR 150.40 and 150.45 into a single section dealing with deviations from the operations manual. In new (b), we would update references to Coast Guard internal organization.

Remove

Nonsubstantive reorganization

We would transfer the substance of this section to § 150.40. Text from existing § 150.45 now in proposed § 150.40(b).

Revise heading

Clarification

The proposed change would reduce the risk of confusing a deepwater port with an Outer Continental Shelf facility.

100

Add (b)

Clarification

We would make explicit the current Coast Guard practice of sometimes allowing, for reasons of government economy, representatives from other Federal agencies to accompany Coast Guard inspectors on inspection visits to deepwater ports.

105

Revise

Clarification

We would clarify the existing procedure for proposing a self-inspection program; to make it clear that it is the operator, not the owner, who performs the duties required by this section; and to make explicit the existing Coast Guard regulatory responsibility to validate the contents and results of deepwater port self-inspections.

107

Add

Procedural change

We would add this section to require deepwater port operators to notify the Coast Guard when a Federal or State agency schedules an inspection and keep inspection records, both of which operators currently do without their being formally required. We would also make it explicit that, as a matter of government economy, Coast Guard personnel sometimes accompany Federal or State inspectors on inspection visits.

110

Add “or of changes in class status.” to existing language

Procedural change

We would require deepwater port operators to notify us of changes in the status of classification society-approved components, which may present safety issues that warrant adjustment to the deepwater port's operations. Operators currently provide this notification without being formally required to do so.

225

Add second sentence

Clarification

This section currently requires appropriate training for deepwater port personnel. We would clarify our expectation, which is in line with current practice at the one existing manned deepwater port, that all personnel will receive basic safety training.

380

Substitute “ships routing measures” for the example “(e.g., no anchoring area)” from Table 150.380(a)

Clarification

We would provide greater technical accuracy and use familiar International Maritime Organization terminology.

Remove “(for example an SPM)” from Table 150.380(a)

Clarification

Because the surface components used by deepwater ports vary so widely, we would remove an example that may confuse some license applicants.

Revise (b)

Clarification

We would update references to Coast Guard internal organization.

435(b)

Add “unless” clause

Provide additional regulatory flexibility

We would allow operations to continue during an electrical storm so long as they are conducted in compliance with appropriate safety provisions contained in the operations manual.

715

Add reference to 33 CFR 66.01-11

Clarification

Deepwater port lights are private aids to navigation and therefore subject to 33 CFR 66.01-11. We would make that explicit in deepwater port regulations.

720

Add reference to 33 CFR 67.10

Clarification

Would clarify that other existing Coast Guard regulations for sound signals still apply.

812

Add “and the environment”

Clarification

Coast Guard marine casualty regulations that currently apply to vessels and facilities, including deepwater ports, protect environmental safety as well as the safety of life and property;

see, e.g.,

33 CFR 140.1, 46 CFR 4.03-1. We would make explicit the need to consider environmental damage in connection with this section.

830

Revise

Procedural change

This section currently requires the one existing oil deepwater port to report oil pollution incidents in accordance with 33 CFR part 135, for which the underlying authority may have been repealed. (

See

Coast Guard notice of inquiry, 76 FR 67385; Nov. 1, 2011; a follow-on rulemaking has begun under RIN 1625-AA03 and docket number USCG-2004-17697.) We would require reports to be made in accordance with 33 CFR part 153 subpart B, which has reporting requirements similar to those in part 135. We would also restate the existing 33 CFR 135.307 requirements for the contents of pollution reports.

915(a)

Add “or the environment”

Clarification

Coast Guard marine casualty regulations that currently apply to vessels and facilities, including deepwater ports, protect environmental safety as well as the safety of life and property;

see, e.g.,

33 CFR 140.1, 46 CFR 4.03-1. We would make explicit the need to consider environmental damage in connection with this section.

V. Regulatory Analyses

The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering the statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking that are discussed in this part.

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. This notice of proposed rulemaking has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

One objective of the proposed rule is to ensure that adequate information is submitted with a deepwater port application. Through the experience of processing past applications, Coast Guard and other Federal agencies have identified additional, specific types of information that are necessary to ensure a timely review of, and decision on, deepwater port applications. For past applications, this additional information has been requested during the review process, causing delays in the review and approval of applications. Specifying that the additional information is required at the beginning of the process will not increase the application process burden, but is expected to result in more efficient and timely reviews of any future applications.

Further, the proposed rule codifies various technical and operational requirements. During the application review process, and after the actual construction and operation of new deepwater ports, the Coast Guard gained additional insight into the technical and operational requirements that will help ensure operations are conducted efficiently and in a manner that furthers safety, security, and environmental protection. These technical and operational requirements are currently standard industry practice or are existing requirements (

e.g.,

from another agency, etc.). The proposed rule consolidates these requirements to facilitate understanding and compliance of deepwater port owners and operators.

Table 2 below provides a summary of the final rule's costs and benefits.

Table 2—Summary of the Proposed Rule's Impacts

Category

Summary

Applicability

Deepwater ports in waters beyond the territorial limits of the United States.

Affected Population

Future deepwater port applicants 3 existing deepwater ports.

Cost Impacts

No additional costs identified.

Benefits

More efficient and timely reviews of deepwater port applications.

Consolidation of technical and operating requirements for existing deepwater ports.

Potential cost savings from the following provisions:

1. § 148.8 Nominate CE.

2. § 148.105 Equivalent means of certifying accuracy of maps.

3. § 148.707.

4. § 149.51 Allows foreign national engineers.

5. § 149.52 Allows for adoption of classification society standards.

6. § 150.435 Authorizes continuation of cargo transfer operations during electrical storm.

7. § 150.15 Limits scope of audits to modifications.

Affected Population

One oil deepwater port began operation before 2006. Since 2006, the Coast Guard has processed, or is processing, eight deepwater port applications to site, construct, and operate deepwater ports. After review of those applications, two LNG deepwater ports have been constructed, one has been issued a license to construct, and one has initial approval through a favorable ROD from MARAD. The applicants for the other four applications have withdrawn their applications. The population of currently operating deepwater ports is three: the one pre-2006 oil port and two LNG ports.

The potential number of additional deepwater port applications over the next 10 years is dependent on changing market conditions and economic forces. The existing deepwater ports were built when the forecasts for imports of LNG to the United States, such as those made by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), were predicting high levels of LNG imports. With recent changes in the natural gas and oil markets, EIA now projects continued decline in LNG imports and increasing volumes of LNG exports.

The financial and technical feasibility of using deepwater ports for LNG exports has not yet been demonstrated, making a projection of the number of future deepwater port applications difficult. The Coast Guard, for the purpose of this rulemaking, estimates that it will receive at least one future deepwater port application in the next 10 years, based on the one entity that has expressed interest in submitting a new application. The Coast Guard is proposing changes to enhance the efficiency and timeliness of any future applications.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf.

Costs

Table 3 details numerous proposed changes in the regulation with an assessment of the cost impacts of the change. These changes fall into the following categories:

• May result in possible time or cost savings as they allow for greater flexibility in complying with existing requirements.

• Clarify information to be submitted with the deepwater port application. These information requirements do not result in additional costs to industry as this information has been required under existing 33 CFR 148.107 in the past during application processing and review. Based on experience with each of the previous applicant reviews, the Coast Guard has consistently requested this information at some point in the processing of the application. The proposed regulatory changes clarify that the information is required up front to allow for the more timely review of the application, thus saving the applicant the time and expense of additional submissions.

• Implementation may be optional.

• Clarify the Coast Guard's existing need for certain additional information that it specifies during the license process and which the license applicant provides; the intended impact of the clarification is to notify the applicant that, in the interest of expeditious processing of the application, this information should be provided up front. As the information is already being provided, there is no new cost impact.

• May be administrative and would not result in costs. Many of these changes clarify the relationship between various Federal agencies with responsibility for deepwater ports application, licensing, and review. These types of changes do not impose any behavioral changes by applicants of deepwater ports. These changes are labeled “Administrative,” described as clarifications, and will have no cost impact. Other “Administrative” proposed changes reword definitions or delete outdated references.

Overall, Coast Guard has not identified additional costs associated with complying with the proposed rule, and sees potential for some minor cost savings. Table 3 provides a detailed list of the changes proposed by the Coast Guard. The changes with potential cost savings include the following:

• Proposed § 148.8 allows an applicant to nominate a CE during the application processing phase. Currently, an applicant nominates a CE later in the application process. By allowing the nomination earlier, we believe that the applicants will have potential cost savings by identifying potential problems or challenges earlier in the process rather than later, when more work has been done on the application.

• Proposed § 148.105 allows for equivalent means of certifying the accuracy of maps. Applicants have experienced delays when certified geologists were not available to certify the accuracy of maps. The Coast Guard had no alternative but to stop the clock, often delaying application processing by several months. The intent of this proposed revision is to permit the use of specialists who do not possess a professional certification, but are able to provide proof of equivalent technical expertise and experience, to certify work studies and reports required to satisfactorily process a deepwater port application. Allowing certifications by technical personnel possessing alternate credentialing will help to eliminate extensive delays in projects, waiting for expertise that is limited and in high demand. Also, proposed § 148.105 allows for the use of data older than 5 years under certain conditions. Use of older data could result in potential cost savings due to the avoidance of gathering new data.

• Proposed § 148.214 allows for resubmission of a modified application without incurring a fee. Under the existing process, an application can be re-submitted after modification, but the applicant must pay the filing fee.

• Proposed § 149.51 allows foreign-national engineers to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee. The potential cost savings come from the flexibility of allowing the applicant to contract services from a larger pool of engineers. The applicant

may have existing relationships with foreign engineers as the construction of LNG ports is multinational. Thus, the expertise of the foreign engineer may allow for more rapid review, greater institutional knowledge, and prior professional relationships which could result in potential cost savings.

• Proposed § 149.52 allows for adoption of classification society standards. Many maritime companies rely on classification standards to satisfy insurance, safety management system (SMS), and other requirements. The Coast Guard's adoption of classification society standards eliminates the potential for duplicate effort. The Coast Guard recognizes that work already completed by a classification society can be used in the application process. An example is the APL submerged turret loading buoy system to import natural gas. The first natural gas deepwater port was Gulf Gateway, which used the APL submerged turret loading buoy system. There were no existing classification standards that addressed these types of ports or their components. Classification societies (American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Det Norske Veritas (DNV)) had to develop standards as the post-licensing review and approval process was taking place. Additional review on the part of the Coast Guard to grant equivalency approvals for some major port components and systems (emergency alarms, shutoffs, etc.) caused some delays in schedule. The classification societies have developed a highly detailed body of information on the submerged turret loading buoy-type deepwater ports, as well as practical experience with the actual deepwater port operations. This information, adopted as classification society standards, will improve and expedite the post-licensing engineering review and approval process.

• Proposed § 150.435 authorizes continuation of cargo transfer operations during an electrical storm. The potential cost savings derives from the ability to continue safe operations during certain electrical storms in accordance with the deepwater port's plans. The LNG port operators have stated that they cannot shut down operations during electrical storms as this will lead to potentially hazardous situations due to static electricity build-up.

Table 3—Assessment of Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Description of change

Type of change

Cost impact

§ 148.3 What Federal agencies are responsible for implementing the Deepwater Port Act?

Clarify the Coast Guard's role as the lead agency responsible for preparing the environmental impact analysis under NEPA, compliance with NEPA and other relevant environmental laws, and matters relating to navigation safety and security, engineering and safety standards, and facility inspections

Administrative: Clarification of existing role

No cost.

PHMSA is the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the construction and operation of pipeline components of a deepwater port

Administrative: Clarification of existing authority of PHMSA

No cost.

Expands the description of responsibilities for the Coast Guard and cooperating Federal agencies

Administrative: Clarification of existing authority of cooperating Federal agencies

No cost.

Delete the reference to an expired Interagency MOU between the Coast Guard and MARAD

Administrative: Deletion of outdated reference

No cost.

§ 148.5 How are terms used in this subchapter defined?

Definition clarifies the requirements of a security plan's scope and contents and would align with 33 CFR subchapter H

Administrative: Definition

No cost.

Definition specifies the components that comprise the flexible riser and umbilical portion of a STL buoy system

Administrative: Definition

No cost.

Moved from § 149.5

Administrative: Move

No cost.

Definition clarifies that the operator of a deepwater port may be either the person who receives the license to operate (licensee), or the licensee's designated representative who is responsible for the day to day operation of the deepwater port

Administrative: Definition

No cost.

Definition clarifies jurisdictional boundaries regarding Federal agency oversight of deepwater pipelines between the Coast Guard and PHMSA regarding oversight of deepwater port pipelines

Administrative: Definition

No cost.

Definition clarifies that the PLEM includes the last downstream valve prior to the deepwater port pipeline

Administrative: Definition

No cost.

Definition to account for a new proposed post-licensing requirement

Administrative: Definition

No cost.

Moved from § 149.5

Administrative: Move

No cost.

Moved from § 149.5

Administrative: Move

No cost.

Definition distinguishes between deepwater ports that use STL buoys to affect cargo transfer and deepwater ports that use single point moorings for cargo transfer operations

Administrative: Definition

No cost.

§ 148.8 How are certifying entities designated and used for purposes of this subchapter?

Allows the applicant to nominate a CE during the application processing phase in order to begin the technical review necessary for the approval of design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans for any proposed deepwater port

Administrative: Provides flexibility in nominating CE earlier in process

Possible time and cost savings. The CE can be nominated and chosen during MARAD evaluation period rather than waiting until after the ROD, allowing an earlier start to certification. The CE could begin a technical review during MARAD evaluation period to identify potential problems and solutions before work has progressed further on an application.

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application?

Clarifies that MARAD, and not the Coast Guard, is the lead agency responsible for matters regarding the DWPA financial responsibility aspect of a deepwater port application

Administrative: Clarification of MARAD and the Coast Guard's existing roles re: DWPA financial responsibility

No cost.

Removes and replaces “operator” with “licensee” as the responsible party for costs associated with removal of port components

Administrative: Clarification of who is financially responsible party

No cost.

Clarifies that the applicant must provide with its application a completed consistency certification stating that the proposed deepwater port complies with each affected State's Coastal Management Program per 15 CFR part 930, subpart D

Administrative: Clarification of need for consistency certificate to comply with existing Coastal Zone Management Program requirements

No cost.

Allows an applicant to provide an equivalent means of certifying the accuracy of the leasing maps or protraction diagrams, as an alternative to using a professional surveyor

Administrative: Provides flexibility in means of certifying accuracy of maps and diagrams

Possible time and cost savings. As the Coast Guard processed applications, it became aware of the limited availability of registered professional surveyors authorized to certify Outer Continental Shelf leasing maps or protraction diagrams. This resulted in delays in application processing. By allowing for equivalent means of certification, this proposed change would broaden the spectrum of persons who would be able to provide the necessary professional competency to certify the accuracy or correctness of the leasing maps or protraction diagrams, and minimize delays in application processing.

Requires the site plan showing proposed anchorage and mooring areas to also include areas associated with construction and installation of deepwater port components (e.g., pipelaying) in addition to deepwater port operations

Clarifies information needed to support application

No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays.

Allow exceptions to 5-year limit on age of data for certain hydrographic data

Administrative: Provides flexibility by allowing the use of data older than 5 years under certain circumstances

Potential time and cost savings. The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval. Use of older information may result in costs avoided to develop new data.

Requires an applicant to provide MetOcean data that includes prevailing winds, currents, waves and storm history in the affected area of the proposed deepwater port site

Clarifies information needed to support application

No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays.

Requires an applicant to provide vessel traffic data to support analysis of navigational safety and security hazards

Clarifies information needed to support application

No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays.

Clarifies that geological survey data includes not just soil analysis, but also the overall physical characteristics of the ocean bottom (e.g., soil mechanics)

Clarifies information needed to support application

No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays.

Formalizes the independent risk and consequence assessment process that has been customarily submitted as a supplement to the application

Clarifies information needed to support application

No cost. Formalizes existing process (information already submitted as a supplement).

Requires the applicant to identify in the environmental evaluation section of the application a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action to include deepwater port location, pipeline routes and landfall locations (if applicable), construction methods, and deepwater port design and technologies used during operations

Clarifies information needed to support application

No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays.

Requires the applicant to include in the deepwater port application a request for a COA as defined at 33 CFR 158.120 or a request for waiver if compliance is impracticable or unreasonable

Clarifies information needed to support application

No cost. Information already compiled and submitted by all applicants to comply with MARPOL and APPS.

§ 148.107 What happens if I supplement my application?

Allows for suspension of timeline if information required is not provided in a timely manner

Administrative: Formalizes existing process for suspending timeline

No cost. Existing process for suspending timelines already in use when applicable.

Superseded

Administrative: Removes and replaces with (d) and (e)

No cost.

Superseded

Administrative: Removes and replaces with (d) and (e)

No cost.

Superseded

Administrative: Removes and replaces with (d) and (e)

No cost.

Replaces (2)

Administrative: Formalizes existing process for suspending timeline

No cost.

Replaces (3)

Administrative: Formalizes existing process for suspending timeline

No cost.

§ 148.125 What are the application fees?

Adds environmental analysis as examples of costs for application and post-license review

Administrative: Adding environmental analysis as example

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Clarifies current practice when processing deepwater port applications that costs for environmental analyses must be paid by applicant prior to commencing operation of deepwater port.

§ 148.209 How is the application processed?

Removes reference to outdated MOU

Administrative: Removes reference to outdated MOU

No cost.

§ 148.211 What must I do if I need to change my application?

Formalizes process in the case of a significant change or required information

Administrative: Formalizes existing process

No cost.

§ 148.214 May I resubmit my application?

Formalizes process for re-submittal of application. Allows for resubmission of application with no filing fee

Administrative: Formalizes process to allow for re-submittal of application

Potential cost savings. Formalizes process that allows for resubmission of modified application with no filing fee.

§ 148.217 How can a State be designated as an Adjacent Coastal State?

States that MARAD determines whether a State should be considered an Adjacent Coastal State, and that MARAD, in consultation with the Coast Guard, would designate the Adjacent Coastal States

Administrative: Clarifies respective duties of Coast Guard and MARAD

No cost.

§ 148.228 What if a formal evidentiary hearing is necessary?

Establishes procedures to be used for a formal evidentiary hearing

Administrative: Provides procedures for existing hearings

No cost.

Removes (b)-(d)

Administrative: Removes superseded requirements

No cost.

§§ 148.230 through 148.256

Removes

Administrative: Removes superseded requirements

No cost.

§ 148.276 What is the timeline for approving or denying an application?

Describes timeline for action on a license including the publishing of a notice of application

Administrative: Clarifies timing for publication of notice of application

No cost.

Describes MARAD public hearings in Adjacent Coastal States

Administrative: Clarifies process for Adjacent Coastal State public hearings

No cost.

§ 148.283 When may the application process be stopped and an application be treated as withdrawn?

Clarifies that MARAD and Commandant will provide a joint written notice to the applicant of action taken under this section

Administrative: Clarification of joint written notice procedure

No cost.

Clarifies when a suspended application is considered withdrawn

Administrative: Substitutes “withdrawn” for “suspended” to describe when an application process is stopped

No cost.

§ 148.405 What are the procedures for notifying the Commandant (CG-5P) of proposed site evaluation and pre-construction testing?

Clarifies that BOEM guidelines for geological and geophysical surveys should be applied when the applicant plans to use bottom and sub-bottom acoustic profiling during deepwater port site evaluation and pre-construction activities

Information for submission with application: Clarifies use of BOEM guidelines for certain data

No cost. Does not add a new requirement, but clarifies what standards would be sufficient for the Coast Guard to properly evaluate an applicant's deepwater port site evaluation and pre-construction testing plans. Applicants currently use BOEM guidelines.

§ 148.605 What are the procedures under OPA 90 for adjusting a deepwater port's limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)?

Clarifies that Coast Guard may lower the OPA 90 limit of liability for deepwater ports under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2) on a port-by-port basis, after evaluating oil spill risk and economic analyses

Administrative: Clarifies process for existing authority for CG to lower the OPA 90 limit of liability for deepwater ports

No cost. Explains process to lower oil spill liability limits. Requires no change of behavior.

Discusses that the OPA 90 limit of liability of a deepwater port will not be reduced to less than $50 million, and may be increased following a reduction, as the Coast Guard deems appropriate, if the design, construction, or operation of the deepwater port changes, or if oil spill incidents related to the deepwater port, or to deepwater ports generally, indicate that a higher limit is needed

Administrative: Sets minimum level for OPA 90 limit of liability adjustments and describes process for increases as appropriate

No cost. Explains OPA 90 liability adjustments. Requires no change of behavior.

Describes that requests for adjustments to the OPA 90 deepwater port limit of liability may be submitted with a license application or upon receipt of a license from MARAD to construct and operate the proposed deepwater port

Administrative: Clarifies process for existing authority for CG to lower OPA 90 limit of liability

No cost. Explains OPA 90 liability adjustments. Requires no change of behavior.

Describes the contents of requests to adjust the limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2), including a risk analysis of the deepwater port to determine its maximum most probable oil discharge and an economic analysis to determine the removal costs and damages of such a spill

Additional Information: Lists information required to support an adjustment to liability

No cost. The industry is currently required by OPA 90 to perform this risk analysis.

§ 148.707 What type of criteria will be used in an environmental evaluation and how will they be applied?

(b) Expands the list of resource areas which will be considered in the environmental impact analysis to include, without being limited to, threatened species; marine protected areas; marine, coastal, and migratory birds; marine mammals; and fisheries

Additional Information: Clarifies existing requirements for NEPA submissions

No cost. The intent of this revision is to clarify that the existing NEPA and DWPA requirements must be met. This has always been required under NEPA and DWPA in order to develop and publish the EIS, and to initiate Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation w/NFMS & FWS.

148.715 How is an environmental review conducted?

Adds the following to the existing list of factors: geographic relevance, age of data, and methods of data analysis

Administrative: Specifies data already required and data quality for Coast Guard review

No cost.

§ 148.737 What environmental statutes must an applicant follow?

Removes the list of environmental statutes and executive orders and replaces it with a reference to the list on the Commandant Web site

Administrative: Replaces list of statutes with reference to Web site so list can be kept current

No cost.

§ 149.5 What definitions apply to this part?

Moves to definitions section 148.5

Administrative: Moved

No cost.

§ 149.15 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications affecting the design and construction of a deepwater port?

Contains procedures for preparation and submission of plans pertaining to design, construction and operation of the deepwater port, and the Coast Guard's review and approval of these proposed plans

Administrative: Removed to § 149.54

No cost.

§ 149.20 What must the District Commander be notified of and when?

Adds that the District Commander must be notified of the construction of a STL buoy

Administrative: Clarifies existing practice by adding STL buoy

No cost. Current industry practice that all STL buoy applicants notify District Commander.

§ 149.51 What construction drawings and specifications are required?

Allows a foreign national engineer, possessing qualifications equivalent to those required in the United States for a professional engineer, to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee

Qualifications: Allows equivalent qualifications for foreign national engineer

Potential cost savings due to flexibility.

§ 149.52 What are the design standards?

Clarifies what the appropriate classification society requirements are for deepwater ports. This proposed change would be added to explicitly allow for the adoption of classification society standards generally used within the offshore industry that are at least equivalent to rules established by any recognized classification society recognized by the Coast Guard

Classification standards: Allows the use of classification society standards as generally used within the industry

Provides alternative for compliance that has potential cost savings due to use of existing industry classification society standards by recognizing work already completed by a classification society, eliminating the potential for duplicating effort.

§ 149.54 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications affecting the design, construction, and operations of a deepwater port?

Moved from another section

Administrative: Moves existing text from other section

No cost.

§ 149.57 What is the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning for Deepwater Ports for operation?

Provides standardization of the deepwater port commissioning process, ensures all levels of the Coast Guard with deepwater port responsibilities are appraised of a deepwater port's pending operational approval, and clarifies for the licensee the identity of the responsible Coast Guard official with daily operational oversight

Administrative: Describes process, clarifies responsibilities

No cost. Uses existing Coast Guard resources.

§ 149.58 What is the role of the certifying entity in the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning for Deepwater Ports for operation?

Certifying entity: Describes scope and duration of CE responsibility

No cost. Current industry practice. Clarifies the role of the technical contractor they have already been employing to develop the application to assume the role as CE for the design, construction, installation, and commencement of deepwater port operations.

§ 149.115 What are the requirements for pipeline end manifold shutoff valves?

Revises to indicate that the PLEM's shutoff valve must be operable from a remote location because that capability must be available for operations on unmanned deepwater ports as well as during emergencies

Equipment requirement: Pipeline end manifold's shutoff valve must be operable from remote location

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Remotely-operated shutoff valves are already required to be installed on all currently active deepwater ports. (i.e., 49 CFR 193 (PHMSA) for LNG deepwater ports), as well as be designed and maintained in accordance with Classification Society Rules (ABS and DNV).

§ 149.206 What are the requirements for survival craft and rescue boats?

Aligns the requirements for survival craft and rescue boats for manned deepwater ports with Coast Guard requirements for survival craft and rescue boats for MODUs in 46 CFR 108.520-108.575

Survival craft: Aligns requirements with MODU CFRs

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. LOOP is the only manned deepwater port and is currently equipped w/SOLAS-compliant survival craft, thus already complying with this regulation change. The cost for operating and maintaining these craft is already factored into port operational budget. Future manned deepwater ports are also expected to comply with SOLAS survival craft requirements.

§ 149.306 through 149.315.

Removes sections

Administrative: Removed

No cost.

§ 150.10 What are the general requirements for operations manuals?

To ensure operations manuals are subject to continuous review and reflect the deepwater port's actual operational profile, the Coast Guard proposes in § 150.10(e) to establish a 5-year cycle for the operator to re-submit the operations manual to the Commandant (CG-5P) to be re-reviewed and re-approved. This 5-year review cycle would coincide with the existing 5-year environmental baseline reassessment requirement found at § 150.15(bb)

Operations manual: 5-year cycle to resubmit operational manual for review

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice and recognizes established procedure. Deepwater port operators have been submitting their operations manuals on a 5-year cycle for nearly 10 years to comply with MTSA requirements, permits, and requirements from other Federal agencies.

§ 150.15 What must the operations manual include?

Require that the operations manual include either the deepwater port's COA that certifies the deepwater port meets the requirements for reception facilities as required under 33 CFR part 158, or to include a waiver of the COA issued by the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority

Operations manual: Specifies inclusion of existing COA in manual

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice.

Comprehensive audit program to ensure that the deepwater port operator has an approved and regularly reviewed deepwater port security plan. To help fulfill this verification requirement, the Coast Guard would implement an annual audit program for deepwater ports that would align with, and the report of audit results would be an attachment to, the annual self-inspection report that the operator is already required to provide to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority as specified at § 150.105. This proposed requirement would allow the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority to verify that the deepwater port operator has the necessary personnel and procedures in place to respond to a security incident in a manner that adequately protects the deepwater port, human health, and the environment

Audit program for port security plan: Establishes a requirement for annual audit of port security plan. Results are submitted as attachment to existing annual self-inspection report

No cost. The deepwater port security plan is a subset of the operations manual. As stated above, LOOP and the LNG deepwater port operators are already employing contractors to conduct and produce port security assessments and to update the operations and security plans as needed. This regulatory revision is formalizing what is current industry practice and meets the approval of the cognizant COTP.

Establishes that the deepwater port security plan must be audited if there is a change in ownership or operations of the deepwater port, or if there have been modifications to the deepwater port

Audit program for port security plan: Establishes requirement for audit of security plan if there is a change in ownership, operations or modification to the port

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Existing Coast Guard deepwater port regulations (§ 150.15(x)) require the operator to maintain a security plan “comparable to part 106.” Part 106, in turn, requires the security plan to be audited annually and to be submitted to Coast Guard for re-approval every 5 years. No currently operating deepwater port has had more than annual audits.

Limits the scope of audits of the port security plan to only those sections affected by the modifications

Audit program for port security plan: Clarifies existing requirements in 106.415(b)(3)

No cost. Clarifies existing requirements in 106.415(b)(3).

Requires submittal of the proposed amendment to the cognizant Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority, with copy to the Commandant for review and approval

Audit program for port security plan: Establishes process if audit results require amendment

Establishes that the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority will normally perform an annual security inspection to verify the findings in the audit. The Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority will perform a more detailed deepwater port security plan review at prescribed 5-year intervals following initial approval of the deepwater port security plan and will include onsite inspection of personnel assignments and qualifications, observance of security drills, and other security exercises as necessary

Security plans: Establishes requirement for Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority to perform annual security inspection and 5-year security plan review

Adopts the use of a formal PMMP. Currently, every licensed deepwater port has a PMMP as a condition of the MARAD-issued license by making the PMMP a requirement of the operations manual

Operations manual: Requires that existing PMMP be incorporated as part of the operations manual

No cost. Current industry practice as every deepwater port has a PMMP to get a license. This also harmonizes with MARAD requirements.

Requires the operator to develop a manual that addresses deepwater port pipeline operations, maintenance and emergencies. This manual, which would be an appendix to the operations manual, would incorporate procedures that meet the requirements of PHMSA regulations

Procedural manual for pipelines: Requires development of a procedures manual for pipelines incorporating existing PHMSA requirements

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice and is also currently required as a condition of the MARAD-issued license for PHMSA approval. Has been submitted by all applicants for deepwater ports.

§ 150.25 When will the Coast Guard require amendments to the operations manual?

Amends the regulation to clarify that if the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority determines that the licensee's proposed amendments to the operations manual are inadequate, the COTP may return the proposed amendments to the licensee for revision

Administrative: Clarifies responsibility of Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority with respect to operations manual amendments

No cost.

Explicitly enables other Federal agencies to propose amendments of the operations manual to Commandant

Administrative: Enables other Federal agencies to propose amendments to operations manual

No cost.

§ 150.30 How may the licensee propose an amendment to the operations manual?

Adds new paragraph (a) to state that the applicant must provide Commandant with a copy of the proposed amendment. Commandant would then notify MARAD prior to approval of significant changes to the deepwater port's operations

Amendment to Operations Manual: Process for submittal and notification of amendment

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and approval are already routinely submitted electronically to Coast Guard.

§ 150.100 What are the requirements for inspecting deepwater ports?

Adds new paragraph (b) to affirm that other Federal agency representatives may accompany Coast Guard personnel during an inspection of a deepwater port to verify compliance in those areas of operations over which each agency has jurisdiction

Administrative: Clarifies that representatives from other Federal agencies can accompany Coast Guard personnel during an inspection

No cost.

§ 150.105 What are the requirements for annual self-inspection?

Revises the procedures for development and approval of a deepwater port self-inspection program by which deepwater ports may, prior to commencement of operations, submit a self-inspection program to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority for consideration and approval

Self-inspection Program: Clarifies existing procedures for development of self-inspection program

No cost. Clarifies existing procedures for development of self-inspection program.

Requires that the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority validate the results of each inspection. If the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority determines the deepwater port is not operating in conformity with its operations manual or license, the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority must direct appropriate corrective action and notify Commandant (CG-5P) and, if there is a possible violation of a license condition, notify MARAD

Administrative: Clarifies procedures for validation of inspections

No cost.

§ 150.107 What notice must be given in the event of inspections?

Requires that the operator notify the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority when a Federal or State agency schedules an inspection, and retain the record of results of any Federal or State agency inspection, and make those records available for review upon request from the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority or his or her designated representative

Notification of inspection: Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of Federal or State inspection and retain records of inspections

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and approval are already routinely submitted to Coast Guard.

§ 150.110 What are the notification requirements upon receipt of classification society certifications?

Requires that the deepwater port operator notify the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of any changes to the deepwater port's classification status to ensure the deepwater port's operations are carried out in a manner that is safe for personnel and protective of the environment

Notification of classification status: Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of changes to classification status

No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and approval are already routinely submitted to Coast Guard.

§ 150.225 What training and instruction are required?

Ensures that all employees, regardless of status, receive basic safety training as soon as practicable after reporting to the deepwater port

Training: Requires that all employees receive basic safety training

No cost. Consolidates existing training requirements that are currently scattered throughout part 150. All deepwater ports currently require basic safety training for all crew and persons other than crew on deepwater ports.

§ 150.435 When are cargo transfers not allowed?

Authorizes continuation of cargo transfers during an electrical storm in the vicinity of the deepwater port so long as the operations manual contains approved procedures, with which the deepwater port operator is in compliance, to ensure the safety of personnel, equipment and the environment

Cargo transfers: Allows continuation of cargo transfers during electrical storms if certain procedures are used

Potential cost savings due to flexibility in continuing operations. Also, LNG ports must maintain operations to avoid possible hazardous situations.

§ 150.830 Reporting a pollution incident.

Requires that the person in charge report oil pollution incidents involving a deepwater port according to §§ 135.305 and 135.307

Notification of oil pollution incidents: Requires that person in charge report oil pollution incidents

No cost. Already required in § 135.307.

Benefits

The benefits of the proposed rule are summarized below. See Table 4 for more detailed marginal benefit analysis.

Part 148

The main purpose of the revisions to 33 CFR part 148 in this proposed rule is to clarify the deepwater port application process. The roles of the Coast Guard, MARAD, BOEM, and other Federal agencies would be further clarified to insure applicants better understand the application process. The

Coast Guard also proposed to revise the definitions used in parts 148, 149, and 150 to reflect actual operations.

The benefits for 33 CFR part 148 would come from incorporating lessons learned from the history of deepwater port applications. The Coast Guard frequently finds that applications cannot be fully processed without time-consuming delays to obtain additional data from applicants. The result may require the Coast Guard to “stop the clock” on the application review process. This proposed rule will likely reduce the periods when the “clock is stopped,” and expedite the application process.

Part 149

The proposed changes in 33 CFR part 149 are mainly technical and administrative in nature to clarify the review and approval process. The proposed changes would allow for increased flexibility in the review and approval process and for certifying entities.

Part 150

The proposed changes to part 150 of Title 33 would consolidate operational requirements and codify current industry practice to improve understanding of, and compliance with, good operational practices.

Table 4—Assessment of Benefits of the Proposed Rule

Section

Description of change

Beneficial impact of change

§ 148.3 What Federal agencies are responsible for implementing the Deepwater Port Act?

Describes Coast Guard's role as the lead agency responsible for NEPA compliance. Also describes the responsibilities of PHMSA and other federal agencies. Deletes reference to expired MOU

Clarifies for applicant the roles and responsibilities of Coast Guard and other Federal agencies to enhance understanding of application process.

§ 148.5 How are terms in this subchapter defined?

Administrative definitions and reorganization

Clarification of various terms.

§ 148.8 How are certifying entities designated and used for purposes of this subchapter.

Possible time and cost savings. The CE can be nominated and chosen during the MARAD evaluation period, rather than waiting until after the ROD, allowing earlier start to certification. The CE could begin technical review during MARAD evaluation period to identify potential problems and solutions before work has progressed on a application.

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application?

Various Administrative measures

Clarifies roles of Coast Guard and MARAD, and who is a financially responsible party, and provides consistency with Coastal Zone Management Act procedures to enhance understanding of application process.

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application?

Provides flexibility in means of certifying accuracy of maps and diagrams

Possible time and cost savings. As the Coast Guard processed applications, it became aware of the unavailability of registered professional surveyors authorized to certify Outer Continental Shelf leasing maps or protraction diagrams. This resulted in delays in application processing. By allowing for equivalent certifications, this proposed change would broaden the spectrum of persons who could certify the accuracy or correctness of the leasing maps or protraction diagrams, and minimize delays in application processing.

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application?

Allows use of data older than 5 years under certain circumstances

Potential time and cost savings. The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval. Use of older information may result in costs avoided to develop new data.

§ 148.105 What must I include in my application?

Specifies various information to be included with application

Clarifies information to be included with the application to prevent “stopping the clock” if information is requested during application review.

§ 148.107 What happens if I supplement my application?

Various Administrative changes, including formalizing existing process for suspending timeline

Clarifies existing process and enhances understanding by removing outdated discussion.

§ 148.125 What are the application fees?

Administrative change that adds environmental analysis as examples of costs for application and post-license review

Clarifies the existing practice that environmental analysis costs are part of application and post-license review.

§ 148.209 How is the application processed?

Administrative change that removes reference to outdated MOU

Clarifies existing process by removing outdated references.

§ 148.211 What must I do if I need to change my application?

Formalizes existing process in the case of a significant change or required information