[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74563-74573]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26493]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 105

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0052]
RIN 1625-AC80

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)--Reader
Requirements; Second Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to further delay the effective date
for certain facilities affected by the final rule entitled
``Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)--Reader
Requirements,'' published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2016.
The current effective date for the final rule is May 8, 2023. The Coast
Guard proposes delaying the effective date for: facilities that handle
certain dangerous cargoes in bulk, but do not transfer those cargoes to
or from a vessel; facilities that handle certain dangerous cargoes in
bulk, and do transfer those cargoes to or from a vessel; and facilities
that receive vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes in bulk, but do
not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer those bulk
cargoes to or from those vessels. Specifically, we propose to delay the
effective date for these facilities for 3 years from the original delay
expiration date of May 8, 2023 to May 8, 2026, but invite comments as
well on possibly extending the delay through as late as May 8, 2029.
This delay will give the Coast Guard time to further analyze the
potential effectiveness of the reader requirement in general as well as
at these facilities.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0052 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document or
technical inquiries, call or email Lieutenant Commander Jeffrey Bender,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. General information and press inquiries:
Contact Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kurt Fredrickson, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory History
IV. Background
V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule To Delay the Effective Date
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
    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

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0052 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. That FAQ page also explains how to subscribe for
email alerts that will notify you when comments are posted or if a
final rule is published. We review all comments received, but we will
only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we
will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a
meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register
notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document.

II. Abbreviations

2016 TWIC Reader
final rule Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)--
Reader Requirements'' final rule published August 23, 2016
2020 delay rule ``TWIC-Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective
Date'' final rule published March 9, 2020
ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CDC Certain Dangerous Cargoes
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COVID-19 Coronavirus disease, 2019
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
FSP Facility Security Plan
HSOAC Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center
MSRAM Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIN Personal identification number
SAFE Port Act Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006
Sec.  Section
TSA Transportation Security Administration
TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Regulatory History

    Pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
(MTSA),\1\ and in accordance with the Security and Accountability for
Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act),\2\ the electronic inspection of
Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC) is required
inside secure areas on certain vessels and facilities in the United
States. Specifically, the SAFE Port Act required that the Secretary put
into effect regulations that require the deployment of electronic
transportation security card readers.\3\ To implement this requirement
in an effective manner, the Coast Guard undertook a series of
regulatory actions culminating in a requirement to implement electronic
TWIC inspection at certain high-risk vessels and facilities regulated
under MTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sec. 102 of Public Law 107-295 (November 25, 2002),
codified as 46 U.S.C. 70105.
    \2\ See Sec. 104 of Public Law 109-347 (October 13, 2006).
    \3\ See 46 U.S.C. 70105(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 22, 2006, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) jointly published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials
Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License.'' \4\ After considering
comments on the NPRM, the Coast Guard and TSA published the final rule
on January 25, 2007, also entitled ``Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector;
Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License.''
\5\ This final rule set forth the requirement, among others, that all
persons allowed unescorted access to secure areas in MTSA-regulated
vessels and facilities were required to possess a TWIC card. It did
not, however, mandate that the TWIC card be read with an electronic
reader. The card could be verified by visual inspection alone, without
making use of the electronic security features built into the card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 71 FR 29395 (May 22, 2006).
    \5\ 72 FR 3491 (January 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the May 22, 2006 NPRM proposed certain TWIC reader
requirements, after reviewing the public comments, the Coast Guard and
TSA decided not to include those proposed requirements in the 2007
final rule. Instead, we addressed those requirements in a separate
rulemaking and conducted a pilot program to address the feasibility of
reader requirements before issuing a final rule. For a detailed
discussion of the public comments and our responses to them, please
refer to the January 25, 2007 final rule (Volume 72 of the Federal
Register (FR), Page 3491).
    On March 27, 2009, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the topic of TWIC reader
requirements.\6\ The ANPRM discussed dividing vessels and facilities
into three ``risk groups''--Risk Group A for the high-risk vessels and
facilities, Risk Group B for medium-risk vessels and facilities, and
Risk Group C for low-risk vessels and facilities. The ANPRM also
considered different electronic inspection requirements for Risk Groups
A and B, with no electronic inspection requirements for Risk Group C.
On March 22, 2013, we published an NPRM that proposed the three risk
groups (A,

B, and C), but limited the proposed electronic TWIC inspection
requirements to Risk Group A vessels and facilities only.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 74 FR 13360 (March 27, 2009).
    \7\ 78 FR 17781 (March 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 23, 2016, we published a final rule entitled
``Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)--Reader
Requirements'' (``2016 TWIC Reader final rule'') that eliminated the
three-risk group structure and required that the high-risk vessels and
facilities (still referred to as Risk Group A) conduct electronic TWIC
inspection for all personnel seeking unescorted access to secure areas
of the vessel or facility; \8\ Risk Group A facilities and vessels are
defined within 33 CFR 104.263, 105.253 and 106.258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 81 FR 57651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Congress also passed several laws that impacted implementation
of the TWIC reader program. On December 16, 2016, the President signed
the bill entitled ``Transportation Security Card Program Assessment.''
This law required, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland
Security to commission a report reviewing the security value of the
TWIC program by: (1) Evaluating the extent to which the TWIC program
addresses known or likely security risks in the maritime and port
environments; (2) evaluating the potential for a non-biometric
credential alternative; (3) identifying the technology, business
process, and operational impact of the TWIC card and readers in
maritime and port environments; (4) assessing the costs and benefits of
the Program, as implemented; and (5) evaluating the extent to which the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has addressed the deficiencies of
the TWIC program previously identified by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG). On
August 2, 2018, the President followed up by signing the
``Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of
2018,'' which prohibited the Coast Guard from implementing the TWIC
Reader rule until at least 60 days after it submits the above report to
the Congress.
    On May 15, 2017, the Coast Guard received a petition for rulemaking
requesting that it revise the final rule and impose electronic TWIC
inspection requirements on only those vessels and facilities that
engage in a maritime transfer of certain dangerous cargoes (CDC).\9\
This is further discussed in Section IV. On June 22, 2018, we published
a second NPRM, which proposed delaying the implementation of the 2016
TWIC Reader final rule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Docket number USCG-2017-0447, available at
www.regulations.gov.
    \10\ TWIC-Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date, 83 FR
29067 (June 22, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2020, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled
``TWIC-Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date'' (``the 2020 delay
rule'').\11\ The 2020 delay rule extended the effective date of the
2016 rule only for Risk Group A facilities that handle CDC in bulk
until May 8, 2023; the implementation date for facilities designated as
Risk Group A due to their receiving of vessels certificated to carry
more than 1,000 passengers remained unchanged and was implemented on
August 23, 2018 (enforcement of the regulation was delayed due to the
global COVID-19 pandemic until January 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 85 FR 13493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2020, the Coast Guard commissioned the Homeland Security
Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC), the Department's studies and
analysis federally funded research and development center (FFRDC)
operated by the RAND Corporation, to conduct an analysis to identify
the population of facilities handling certain dangerous cargoes
impacted by the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule, to develop a risk-
consequence analysis for these facilities, and to conduct a benefit-
cost analysis based on the information collected and analyzed during
this subsequent study. The Rand Corporation analysis was received by
the Coast Guard on July 29, 2022; the options for implementing the 2016
TWIC Reader final rule are currently being evaluated. While we evaluate
the study results, to avoid the 2016 TWIC Reader rule going into effect
and creating confusion and conflicts between its original requirements
and the potential outcomes of the study, the Coast Guard will delay the
original rule's implementation. The 2016 TWIC Reader final rule would
remain in effect for facilities receiving vessels certificated to carry
more than 1,000 passengers (33 CFR104.263, 105.253 and 106.258), as
this proposed rule would not affect those facilities.

IV. Background

    The 2016 TWIC Reader final rule established electronic TWIC reader
regulations for certain high-risk vessels and MTSA-regulated
facilities. Shortly thereafter, the chemical industry expressed concern
that the final rule significantly expanded the scope of the 2013 NPRM,
and requested that the Coast Guard narrow the classes of chemical
facilities that would be subject to the enhanced security requirements.
An industry association representing terminal companies nationwide then
initiated litigation against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
in 2017, claiming that the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule violated the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).\12\ However, the court dismissed
the action, holding that the issue was not ripe for adjudication
because Congress passed legislation delaying the implementation of the
final rule, and there was a likelihood that Congress or the Coast Guard
might amend or replace the regulation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Int'l Liquid Terminals Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland
Sec., No. 1:18-cv-00467, 2018 WL 8667001, at *1 (E.D. Va., Sept. 17,
2018).
    \13\ Id. at *2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2020, DHS published the Coast Guard's corrective action
plan (CAP) entitled Corrective Action Plan from the Assessment of the
Risk Mitigation Value of the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential.\14\ The CAP identified the need to conduct a risk analysis
over the next 3 years in order to identify all facilities handling CDC
and analyze the need for TWIC readers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A copy of the study is available in the docket for this
rule. Corrective Action Plan from the Assessment of the Risk
Mitigation Value of the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential; Report to Congress, June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 2020, the Coast Guard again commissioned the HSOAC,
operated by the RAND Corporation, to conduct a subsequent analysis to
identify the population of facilities handling CDC impacted by the 2016
TWIC Reader final rule, to develop a risk-consequence analysis for
these facilities, and to conduct a benefit/cost analysis.

V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule To Delay the Effective Date

    In this NPRM, we propose to delay the effective date for facilities
that handle CDC in bulk for 3 years from the original delay expiration
date of May 8, 2023 to May 8, 2026. These facilities would not need to
install electronic TWIC readers at least until the new implementation
date. 2016 TWIC Reader final rule would remain in effect for facilities
receiving vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers, as
this proposed rule would not affect those facilities. This proposed
rule would delay the implementation of TWIC readers for facilities that
handle CDC in bulk so the Coast Guard can accurately determine the
affected population through an analysis by the HSOAC, which would
measure and assess potential risks of CDC, including

the types of CDC, population density within a certain distance of the
facility and other risk and consequence aspects.
    This proposed rule would allow the industry to provide further
input on the implementation of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule, and
would provide additional time so that facility owners and operators can
plan accordingly for implementation. We invite your comments on the
proposed second delay of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule we have
reflected in our proposed regulatory text of an additional 3 years. We
also realize that HSOAC study recommendations, and other relevant
matters presented, may require the Coast Guard to possibly delay the
effective date for more than three additional years and invite comments
on possibly extending the delay through as late as May 8, 2029.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    This rulemaking would further delay the effective date for three
types of facilities affected by the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule.
Specifically, these are: (1) facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but do
not transfer those cargoes to or from a vessel; (2) facilities that
handle CDC in bulk and do transfer those cargoes to or from a vessel;
and (3) facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk, but do
not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer those bulk
cargoes to or from said vessels. The current effective date of the 2016
rule for these facilities is May 8, 2023, which was established by the
2020 delay rule. With this proposed rule, we would delay the effective
date for facilities that handle CDC in bulk by an additional 3 years,
until May 8, 2026.
    Below, we provide an updated Regulatory Analyses of the 2016 TWIC
Reader final rule that presents the impacts of delaying the effective
date of the final rule for the three types of Risk Group A facilities
defined in the preceding paragraph. For this updated analysis, we
estimated the impact of delaying the final rule by calculating the 10-
year cost of this proposed rule where only certain facilities will
incur costs starting in year 4, and no facilities will incur costs in
the first 3 years, in order to compare it to the 10-year cost presented
in the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA) for the 2016 TWIC Reader final
rule. We then calculated the difference between the two costs to
estimate the impact, which is a net cost savings, of this proposed
rule.

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 costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has reviewed it under that Order. It requires an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order
12866. In accordance with OMB Circular A-4, we have prepared an
accounting statement showing the classification of impacts associated
with this final rule.

                       Table 1--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement 2022-2032 Period of Analysis
                                                 [2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Primary estimate             Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized benefits...........  ..................                 7%   RA
                                          ..................                 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but unmonetized,                    None.                  RA
 benefits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantifiable Benefits.................  For facilities with a delayed           RA
                                          compliance, final rule will postpone
                                          the enhanced benefits of electronic
                                          TWIC Inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs ($ Mil)......             ($5.4)                  7%   RA
                                                     ($3.6)                  3%   RA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but unmonetized,                    None.                  RA
 costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (un-quantified) cost savings  The proposed rule would delay the cost  RA
                                          to retrieve or replace lost PINs for
                                          use with TWICs for the facilities with
                                          delayed implementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers: ``on                  Not calculated.             RA
 budget''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whom to whom?                                                                RA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers: ``off-                     None.
 budget''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whom to whom?......................                   None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Miscellaneous Analyses/Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on Tribal, State, and/or local                     None.
 governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on small businesses.............  Proposed rule would not have a          RA
                                          significant economic impact on a
                                          substantial number of small entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on wages........................                   None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on growth.......................             No determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking would further delay the effective date for certain
facilities--that is, all facilities that handle certain CDC in bulk--
affected by the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule. The current effective date
of the 2016 rule for these facilities is May 8, 2023, which was
established by the first effective date 2020 delay rule, published
March 9, 2020. With this proposed rule, we would delay the effective
date for these facilities for 3 years from the original delay
expiration date of May 8, 2023, to May 8, 2026, but invite comments as
well on possibly extending the delay to as late as May 8, 2029.
    This proposed rule would delay the implementation of the 2016 TWIC
Reader final rule by 3 years (May 8, 2026, or later) for facilities
that handle CDC in bulk but do not transfer it to or from a vessel,
facilities that handle CDC in bulk and do transfer those cargoes to or
from a vessel, and facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC
but, during that vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer bulk CDC
to or from the vessel. This proposed rule does not modify any of the
regulatory requirements under the 2016 TWIC reader final rule. We did
not revise our fundamental methodologies or key assumptions for the
2016 TWIC Reader final rule RIA.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Available in the docket; docket number USCG-2007-28915-
0231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule RIA, we estimated that 525
facilities and 1 vessel out of the MTSA-regulated entities (13,825
vessels and more than 3,270 facilities) would have to comply with the
final rule's electronic TWIC inspection requirements using the Maritime
Security Risk Analysis Model (MSRAM's) risk-based tiered approach.\16\
Using data from MSRAM, we estimate that this proposed rule would delay
the implementation of the final rule for 370 of the 525 affected Risk
Group A facilities by 3 years, while the remaining 155 facilities and 1
vessel were required to implement the final rule requirements by June
8, 2020. These 370 facilities are those that handle bulk CDC, but do
not transfer it to or from a vessel, facilities that handle CDC in bulk
and do transfer those cargoes to or from a vessel, and facilities that
receive vessels carrying bulk CDC but, during the vessel-to-facility
interface, do not transfer the bulk CDC to or from the vessel. We did
not include these facilities in our MSRAM risk analysis for the 2016
final rule or in the 2016 final rule's RIA, as, we could not determine
the number of those facilities at the time, and we did not include them
in our cost estimates for this proposed rule. The number of actual
facilities that meet the criteria, and that fall into the above
category, will not be known until after an additional study is
conducted to improve the risk methodology and determine the new risk
groups. The final count of facilities will most likely be similar, but
not identical to the cited 370 facilities. Therefore, the USCG is using
its discretion to delay the implementation of the TWIC reader rule on
those 370 facilities until a more accurate population estimate can be
established. Future regulatory analyses will update these estimates
once the commissioned risk study is complete and the Coast Guard has
assessed which CDC facilities fall within the level or risk that is
deemed appropriate to require a TWIC reader. We updated our final rule
cost estimates from 2012 to 2020 based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
deflator data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).\17\ The
GDP deflator is a measure of the change in price of domestic goods and
services purchased by consumers, businesses, and the Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Table 2.8 on page 26 of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule
Regulatory Analysis for the estimate of 525 facilities, and Table
2.1 on page 23 for the estimate of 1 vessel.
    \17\ For consistency across rulemaking analyses, we are using
the annual Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (BEA
National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 1.1.9) values
updated in 2021, accessed by the Coast Guard through the BEA's
publicly available data sets. The NIPA tables can be found at:
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 summarizes the costs and benefits of the 2020 Final Rule to
Delay the TWIC Reader Final rule, as well as this proposed rule, which
would extend the delay from the 2020 Final Rule. We do not anticipate
any new costs to industry if the final rule is implemented, because
this proposed rule would not change the applicability of the 2016 final
rule or any subsequent amendments thereof. This proposed rule would
result in no other changes to the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule. There is
no impact to the one previously affected vessel and 155 MTSA facilities
that complied with the TWIC rule as of June 8, 2020. Because this
proposed rule would extend the delay on implementation of the final
rule by three years for 370 facilities, it would result in cumulative
cost savings to industry and the Government of $37.84 million
(discounted at seven percent) over a 10-year period of analysis
($152.95 million minus $115.12 million). At a seven percent discount
rate, we estimate the total annualized cost savings to be $5.39 million
($21.78 million minus $16.39 million).

Table 2--Summary of Costs Saving and Change in Benefits: 2020 Final Rule
        To Delay TWIC Final Rule to NPRM To Delay the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Proposed rule to
                                2020 TWIC reader       delay 2016 TWIC
          Category              final delay rule      reader final rule
                                 (2020 dollars)        (2020 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population.........  370 facilities that   370 facilities that
                               handle bulk CDC,      handle bulk CDC,
                               and an unknown        but do not transfer
                               number of             it to or from a
                               facilities that       vessel and that
                               receive vessels       handle bulk CDC and
                               carrying bulk CDC     do transfer such
                               but, during that      cargoes to or from
                               vessel-to-facility    a vessel (to comply
                               interface, do not     by May 8th, 2026).
                               transfer bulk CDC     The proposed rule
                               to or from the        would also apply to
                               vessel.               facilities that
                                                     receive vessels
                                                     carrying bulk CDC
                                                     but, during that
                                                     vessel-to-facility
                                                     interface, do not
                                                     transfer bulk CDC
                                                     to or from the
                                                     vessel. However,
                                                     the number of these
                                                     facilities cannot
                                                     be determined at
                                                     this time and will
                                                     not be known until
                                                     after an additional
                                                     study is conducted
                                                     to improve the risk
                                                     methodology and
                                                     determine the new
                                                     risk groups to
                                                     comply by May 8,
                                                     2026.
                                                    No change from final
                                                     rule.
Costs to Industry and         Industry: $21.76      Industry: $16.38
 Government ($ millions, 7%    (annualized).         (annualized).
 discount rate).              Government: $0.015    Government: $0.008
                               (annualized).         (annualized).
                              Both: $21.78          Both: $16.39
                               (annualized).         (annualized).
                              Industry: $152.85     Industry: $115.06
                               (10-year).            (10-year).
                              Government: $0.103    Government: $0.059
                               (10-year).            (10-year).
                              Both: $152.95 (10-    Both: $115.12 (10-
                               year).                year).
Change in Costs               Time to retrieve or   The proposed rule
 (Qualitative).                replace lost          would delay the
                               personal              cost to retrieve or
                               identification        replace lost PINs
                               numbers (PINs) for    for use with TWICs
                               use with TWICs.       for the facilities
                                                     with delayed
                                                     implementation.
Change in Benefits            Enhanced access       Delaying enhanced
 (Qualitative).                control and           access control and
                               security at U.S.      security for the
                               maritime facilities   facilities with
                               and on-board U.S.-    delayed
                               flagged vessels.      implementation.
                              Reduction of human    Delaying the
                               error when checking   reduction of human
                               identification and    error when checking
                               manning access        identification and
                               points.               manning access
                                                     points for the
                                                     facilities with
                                                     delayed
                                                     implementation.
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total Cost Savings ($     Annualized..........  Industry: $5.38
     millions, 7% discount                           (annualized).
     rate).                                         Government: $0.006
                                                     (annualized).
                                                    Total: $5.39
                                                     (annualized).
                              10-Year.............  Industry: $37.79 (10-
                                                     year).
                                                    Government: $0.04
                                                     (10-year).
                                                    Total: $37.84 (10-
                                                     year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology
Final Rule Costs Inflated to 2020 Dollars
    As shown in table 1, we updated the annualized cost of the 2016
TWIC Reader final rule from 2012 dollars to 2020 dollars (over a 10-
year period), then adjusted the population count to be consistent with
the smaller affected population. With adjustments, the cost of the rule
(over a 10-year period) is approximately $21.76 million, at a seven
percent discount rate. We performed this update to compare those costs
to this proposed rule's total industry costs on the same basis. The
following costs take into account revisions made in the 2020 delay rule
of March 9, 2020 that corrected mathematical errors from the 2016 TWIC
Reader rule which, impacted the estimated average number of readers per
access point, and the average installation and infrastructure costs for
facilities. Although we have updated our analysis from the NPRM to
reflect these changes, this did not modify the methodology of our RA,
other than to account for the reduced population that is affected by
this NPRM.
    We used an inflation factor from the annual GDP deflator data. We
calculated the inflation factor of 1.136 by modifying the deflator base
year to 2020 (GDP deflator = 100 at 2020 prices) and dividing the
annual 2020 index number (100) by the annual 2012 index number (88). We
then applied this inflation factor to the costs for vessels and
additional costs, which include additional delay costs, travel costs,
and the cost to replace TWIC readers that fail (Table 4.38 of the final
rule RIA).
    For facilities, we applied this inflation factor to the total cost-
by-cost component (table 4.17 of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule)
because the proposed rule would apply to only some of these cost
elements. Facility costs include capital costs, maintenance costs, and
operational costs. Capital costs consist of the cost to purchase and
install TWIC readers, as well as the cost to fully replace TWIC readers
5 years after the original installation. Maintenance costs account for
the costs to maintain TWIC readers every year after the original
installation. Operational costs include costs that occur only at the
time of the TWIC reader installation, such as those for amending
security plans, creating a recordkeeping system, and initial training.
Operational costs also include ongoing costs, such as those for keeping
and maintaining records, downloading the canceled card list, and
ongoing annual training.
Proposed Rule Costs
    This proposed rule would delay the effective date of the final rule
by three years (until May 8, 2026) for 370 facilities that handle bulk
CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel and facilities that
handle CDC in bulk, and do transfer those cargoes to or from a vessel,
and an undetermined number of facilities that receive vessels carrying
bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from the vessel during that
vessel-to-facility interface. To allow for a consistent comparison
between the baseline estimates and the costs of this proposed rule, we
maintain the assumption from the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule RA that 50
percent of facilities will comply for each of the two final years
preceding the final implementation date. Therefore, for this NPRM, we
assume that 50 percent of

facilities with a three-year implementation delay will comply in May of
year 3, and 50 percent of facilities with a three-year implementation
delay will comply in year 4. We maintain this assumption to provide a
consistent comparison between the baseline cost estimates presented in
the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule, and the costs of this rule.
    The costs are separated into three categories (2020 dollars): (1)
capital costs of which the initial average capital cost per facility is
$278,630; (2) maintenance costs, of which the average annual cost
incurred per facility for the first year is $4,290; and (3) operational
costs, which on average per facility are $8,594. The total undiscounted
costs for the first year of operation on average per facility is
$287,220. After the initial five-year period of use, TWIC readers may
need to be replaced, our assumption is that all readers will need to be
replaced at five-year intervals, although it is likely that this will
not be the case and that only a percent of readers will need
replacement. The average cost per facility to replace its TWIC readers
is $4,296.
    To estimate the capital costs in a given year, we multiplied the
total baseline capital costs for all facilities by the percentage of
facilities incurring costs in a given year. Because maintenance costs
are not incurred until the year after the TWIC readers are installed,
we calculated the proposed rule maintenance costs in a given year by
multiplying the total baseline costs for all facilities by the
percentage of facilities complying in the previous year. We estimated
operational costs in a similar manner, multiplying total operational
costs by the percentage of facilities complying in a given year. Table
3 presents the total cost to facilities under this proposed rule.

                    Table 3--Total Cost for Facilities From Partially Delaying the Effective Date of the 2016 TWIC Reader Final Rule
                                                                 [Millions 2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of new   Total number                     Maintenance     Operational    Undiscounted
                          Year                              facilities     of facilities   Capital costs       costs           costs           total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................               0               0           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
2.......................................................               0               0            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
3.......................................................               0               0            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
4.......................................................             185             185           51.64            0.00            1.59           53.23
5.......................................................             185             370              52            0.80            2.13           54.57
6.......................................................               0             370            0.00            1.59            1.07            2.66
7.......................................................               0             370            0.00            1.59            1.07            2.66
8.......................................................               0             370            0.00            1.59            1.07            2.66
9.......................................................               0             370            7.96            2.26            1.07           11.29
10......................................................               0             370            7.96            2.26            1.07           11.29
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............          119.21           10.09            9.07          138.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Table 4 summarizes the total costs to industry of this proposed
rule in 2020 dollars. This proposed rule would not impact the
compliance schedule for vessels, therefore these costs remain unchanged
from the baseline. We calculated the additional costs by multiplying
the totals in table 2 by the percentage of facilities complying within
a given year and phasing them in over two years. Over ten years, we
estimate the annualized cost to industry to be $16.38 million at a
seven percent discount rate.

              Table 4--Total Industry Cost Under the 2022 Proposed Rule Partially Delaying the Effective Date of the 2016 TWIC Reader Rule
                                                                [Millions, 2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                          Year                               Facility         Vessel          costs *      Undiscounted         7%              3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................           $0.00          $0.000           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
2.......................................................            0.00           0.000            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
3.......................................................            0.00           0.000            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
4.......................................................           53.23           0.000            1.69           54.92           41.90           48.80
5.......................................................           54.57           0.000            4.78           59.35           42.31           51.19
6.......................................................            2.66           0.000            4.78            7.45            4.96            6.24
7.......................................................            2.66           0.000            4.78            7.45            4.64            6.05
8.......................................................            2.66           0.000            4.78            7.45            4.33            5.88
9.......................................................           11.29           0.000            4.78           16.07            8.74           12.32
10......................................................           11.29           0.000            4.78           16.07            8.17           11.96
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          138.37           0.000           30.38          168.75          115.06          142.44
Annualized..............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           16.38           16.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These costs include additional delay, travel, and TWIC replacement costs due to TWIC failures.
Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Table 5 presents the estimated change in total costs to industry
from delaying the implementation of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule by
three years (until May 8, 2026) for facilities that handle bulk CDC,
but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, facilities that handle CDC
in bulk, and do transfer those cargoes to or from a vessel, and
facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC, but do not transfer
it to or from the vessel during that vessel-to-facility interface. We
estimated an annualized cost savings to industry of $3.60 million at a
seven percent discount rate.

 Table 5--Total Change in Industry Cost From the 2020 TWIC Final Delay Rule to the 2022 NPRM Partially Delaying
                                        the Effective Date of Final Rule
                                            [Millions, 2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total 10-year cost                Annualized cost
                                                           (discounted)          -------------------------------
       Total 10-year cost (not discounted)       --------------------------------
                                                        7%              3%              7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 TWIC Final Delay Reader Rule:
    $192.21.....................................         $152.85         $173.16          $21.76          $20.30
NPRM to Delay Final Rule by 3 years:
    $168.75.....................................          115.06          142.44           16.38           16.70
Change (Cost Savings):
    ($23.46)....................................         (37.79)         (30.72)          (5.38)          (3.60)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualitative Costs
    Qualitative costs are as shown in table 1. This proposed rule would
delay the cost to retrieve or replace lost PINs for use with TWICs for
the facilities with delayed implementation.
Government Costs
    We expect that this proposed rule would also generate a cost
savings to the Government from delaying the review of the revised
security plans for 370 Risk Group A facilities that handle bulk CDC,
but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive
vessels carrying bulk CDC. There is no change in cost to the Government
resulting from TWIC inspections, because inspections are already
required under MTSA, and the TWIC reader requirements do not modify
these requirements. As such, there is no additional cost to the
Government.
    To estimate the cost to the Government, we followed the same
approach as the industry cost analysis and adjusted the cost estimate
presented in the final rule RIA from 2012 dollars to 2020 dollars. For
the government analysis, we used the fully loaded 2020 wage rate for an
E-5 level staff member, $54 per hour, from Commandant Instruction
7310.1U: Reimbursable Standard Rates, in place of the 2012 wage of $49
per hour.\18\ We then followed the calculations outlined on page 72 of
the final rule Regulatory Analysis to estimate a government cost of
$56,700 in years four and five ($54 x 4 hours per review x 262.5
plans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Because the Coast Guard is not delaying the implementation
schedule for vessels, the proposed rule would have no impact on the
costs associated with vessel security plans, and, therefore, we did
not include them in this RA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 presents the annualized baseline government costs of
$14,596 at a seven percent discount rate.

                     Table 6--Total Government Cost Under 2020 TWIC Reader Final Delay Rule
                                                 [2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost of
                                                                     facility
                              Year                                 security plan        7%              3%
                                                                       (FSP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................              $0              $0              $0
2...............................................................               0               0               0
3...............................................................               0               0               0
4...............................................................          39,960          30,485          35,504
5...............................................................          39,960          28,491          34,470
6...............................................................               0               0               0
7...............................................................               0               0               0
8...............................................................               0               0               0
9...............................................................               0               0               0
10..............................................................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          79,920          58,976          69,974
Annualized......................................................  ..............           8,397           8,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 7 presents the government cost under the proposed rule. We
estimated the annualized government cost to be $8,397 at a seven
percent discount rate. To estimate government costs in year 4 and year
5, we used the same approach as the baseline cost estimates.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ We calculated the total cost in year 1 as 4 hours x $54 x
202 FSPs; the total cost in year 2 as 4 hours x $54 x 201 FSP and
the total cost in years 3 and 4, as 4 hours x $54 x 61 FSPs.

Table 7--Total Government Cost Under the 2022 NPRM Partially Delaying the Effective Date of the 2016 Final Rule,
                                                  Risk Group A
                                                 [2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                  Cost of FSP         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................              $0              $0              $0
2...............................................................               0               0               0
3...............................................................               0               0               0
4...............................................................          39,960          30,485          35,504
5...............................................................          39,960          28,491          34,470
6...............................................................               0               0               0
7...............................................................               0               0               0
8...............................................................               0               0               0
9...............................................................               0               0               0
10..............................................................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          79,920          58,976          69,974
Annualized......................................................  ..............           8,397           8,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 8 presents the estimated change in government costs from
delaying the implementation of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule by three
years (until May 8, 2026) for facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do
not transfer it to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive
vessels carrying bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from the vessel
during that vessel-to-facility interface. We estimated an annualized
cost savings to the Government of $6,199 at a seven percent discount
rate.

  Table 8--Total Change in Government Cost From the 2020 Final Rule To Delay TWIC to the 2022 NPRM Delaying the
                                   Effective Date of the 2016 TWIC Final Rule
                                                 [2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total cost (discounted)             Annualized cost
           Total cost (not discounted)           ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        7%              3%              7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 TWIC Reader Final Rule:
    $79,920.....................................        $102,515        $108,494         $14,596         $12,719
NPRM to Delay Final Rule by 3 years:
    $113,400....................................          58,976          69,974           8,397           8,203
Change:
    $33,480.....................................        (43,538)        (38,520)         (6,199)         (4,516)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change in Benefits
    As noted, this proposed rule would delay the effective date of the
2016 TWIC Reader final rule requirement for three categories of
facilities: (1) Facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it
to or from a vessel; (2) facilities that handle CDC and do transfer
such cargoes to or from a vessel; and (3) facilities that receive
vessels carrying bulk CDC, but do not transfer bulk CDC to or from the
vessel during that vessel-to-facility interface. The facilities for
which the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule would be delayed will not realize
the enhanced benefits of electronic inspection, such as the increased
protection against individuals who do not hold valid TWICs being
granted unescorted access, enhanced verification of personal identity,
and a reduction in potential vulnerabilities until May 8, 2026.
    In addition, the proposed rule would delay the cost to retrieve or
replace lost PINs for use with TWICs for the facilities with delayed
implementation. This is an unquantified cost savings which would accrue
to individual mariners and the Coast Guard.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Title 5 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.), Sections 601-612, we have considered whether this
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned
and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard will delay the effective date of the 2016 TWIC
Reader final rule from May 8, 2023 until May 8, 2026 for facilities
that handle CDC in bulk. We estimate that, consistent with past and
present analyses, 370 facilities will experience cost savings. We
estimate these facilities would experience an annualized cost savings
of approximately $9,800 (with a seven percent discount rate), and that
on average each entity owns two facilities and would save approximately
$19,600. We calculate that approximately two percent of the small
entities impacted by this proposed 2022 delay NPRM would have a cost
savings that is greater than one percent but less than three percent of
their annual revenue. The other 98 percent would have a cost savings
that is less than one percent of their annual revenue.
    Given this information, the Commandant of the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
to the docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. In your

comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree
this proposed rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection or revision of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    This proposed rule would delay the implementation of existing
regulations that create a risk-based set of security measures for MTSA-
regulated facilities. Based on this analysis, each facility is
classified according to its risk level, which then determines whether
the facility will be required to conduct electronic TWIC inspection. As
this proposed rule would not impose any new requirements, but simply
delay the implementation of existing requirements, it would not have a
preemptive impact. Please refer to the Coast Guard's federalism
analysis in the 2016 TWIC Reader Final Rule (81 FR 57651, 57706) for
additional information.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, States and local governments have traditionally
shared certain regulatory jurisdiction over waterfront facilities.
Therefore, MTSA standards contained in Title 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 105 (Maritime security: Facilities) are not
preemptive of State or local law or regulations that do not conflict
with them (that is, they would either actually conflict or would
frustrate an overriding Federal need for uniformity).
    The Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local
governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally,
for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive
Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and
local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this
rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section
of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. This proposed rule would be
categorically excluded under paragraph L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01(series). Paragraph L54 pertains to
regulations that are editorial or procedural. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 105

    Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.

    For the reasons listed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 105 as follows:

PART 105--MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 105 continues is revised as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70103, 70116; Sec. 811, Public Law
111-281, 124 Stat. 2905; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and
6.19; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1,
Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Amend Sec.  105.253 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  105.253  Risk Group classifications for facilities.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Beginning May 8, 2026: Facilities that handle Certain Dangerous
Cargoes (CDC) in bulk and transfer such cargoes from or to a vessel.
    (3) Beginning May 8, 2026: Facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but
do not transfer it from or to a vessel.
    (4) Beginning May 8, 2026: Facilities that receive vessels carrying
CDC in bulk but, during the vessel-to-facility interface, do not
transfer it from or to the vessel.
* * * * *

    Dated: November 30, 2022.
Linda Fagan,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2022-26493 Filed 12-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P