[Federal Register: August 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 161)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46559-46562]
[DOCID:fr21au07-10]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release Nos. 33-8834; 34-56256; 39-2448; IC-27928]
RIN 3235-AG96

Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is
adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and
Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual to reflect updates to the EDGAR
system. Revisions are being made primarily to support the expansion of
the current interactive data voluntary reporting program to enable
mutual funds voluntarily to submit supplemental tagged information
contained in the risk/return summary section of their prospectuses on
Form N-1A. The EDGAR system is being upgraded to support this
functionality on August 20, 2007.
    The filer manual is also being revised to incorporate changes in
support of several final rules previously adopted by the Commission and
implemented in EDGAR. Those rules include the termination of a foreign
private issuer's registration of a class of securities under Section
12(g) and duty to file reports under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''); the electronic
filing of Transfer Agent (``TA'') forms TA-1, TA-2 and TA-W; and
revisions to the accelerated filer definition under the Exchange Act.
Other revisions were made to allow an issuer to indicate whether it is
subject to reporting obligations after terminating registration of a
class of equity securities under the Exchange Act and to remove
references to submission types N-14AE and N-14AE/A for the filing of
Form N-14 from ``Table 3-5: Investment Company Submission Types
Accepted by EDGAR'' of the Filer Manual.
    Revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volumes I and
II, entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: ``General Information,''
Version 4 (August 2007) and EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: ``EDGAR
Filing,'' Version 5 (August 2007) respectively. The updated manual will
be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 20, 2007. The incorporation by reference
of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of August 20, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In the Office of Information
Technology, Rick Heroux, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; in the Division of
Investment Management, for questions concerning the expansion of the
current interactive data voluntary reporting program, Alberto H.
Zapata, Senior Counsel, or Brent J. Fields, Assistant Director, Office
of Disclosure Regulation, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and for

questions concerning investment company filings, Ruth Armfield Sanders,
Senior Special Counsel, Office of Legal and Disclosure, at (202) 551-
6989; in the Division of Market Regulation, for questions concerning
the electronic filing of Transfer Agent forms, Catherine Moore, Special
Counsel, Office of Clearance and Settlement, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; and in
the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions concerning the
definition of accelerated filer for periodic reports, Katherine W. Hsu,
Special Counsel, Office of Rulemaking, at<PHONE_NUMBER> and for
questions concerning termination of a foreign private issuer's
registration, Elliot Staffin, Special Counsel, Office of International
Corporate Finance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today we are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer
Manual, Volumes I and II. The Filer Manual describes the technical
formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of
electronic filings through the EDGAR system.\1\ It also describes the
requirements for filing using EDGARLink \2\ and the Online Forms/XML
Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We originally adopted the Filer Manual on April 1, 1993,
with an effective date of April 26, 1993. Release No. 33-6986 (April
1, 1993) [58 FR 18638]. We implemented the most recent update to the
Filer Manual on February 6, 2006. See Release No. 33-8656 (January
27, 2006) [71 FR 5596].
    \2\ This is the filer assistance software we provide filers
filing on the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for
filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply
with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure
the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic
format.\3\ Filers should consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with
our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents
for electronic submission.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 301 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.301).
    \4\ See Release Nos. 33-6977 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 14628],
IC-19284 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 14848], 35-25746 (February 23,
1993) [58 FR 14999], and 33-6980 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 15009]
in which we comprehensively discuss the rules we adopted to govern
mandated electronic filing. See also Release No. 33-7122 (December
19, 1994) [59 FR 67752], in which we made the EDGAR rules final and
applicable to all domestic registrants; Release No. 33-7427 (July 1,
1997) [62 FR 36450], in which we adopted minor amendments to the
EDGAR rules; Release No. 33-7472 (October 24, 1997) [62 FR 58647],
in which we announced that, as of January 1, 1998, we would not
accept in paper filings that we require filers to submit
electronically; Release No. 34-40934 (January 12, 1999) [64 FR
2843], in which we made mandatory the electronic filing of Form 13F;
Release No. 33-7684 (May 17, 1999) [64 FR 27888], in which we
adopted amendments to implement the first stage of EDGAR
modernization; Release No. 33-7855 (April 24, 2000) [65 FR 24788],
in which we implemented EDGAR Release 7.0; Release No. 33-7999
(August 7, 2001) [66 FR 42941], in which we implemented EDGAR
Release 7.5; Release No. 33-8007 (September 24, 2001) [66 FR 49829],
in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.0; Release No. 33-8224
(April 30, 2003) [68 FR 24345], in which we implemented EDGAR
Release 8.5; Release Nos. 33-8255 (July 22, 2003) [68 FR 44876] and
33-8255A (September 4, 2003) [68 FR 53289] in which we implemented
EDGAR Release 8.6; Release No. 33-8409 (April 19, 2004) [69 FR
21954] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.7; Release No. 33-
8454 (August 6, 2004) [69 FR 49803] in which we implemented EDGAR
Release 8.8; Release No. 33-8528 (February 3, 2005) [70 FR 6573] in
which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.10; Release No. 33-8573 (May
19, 2005) [70 FR 30899] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 9.0;
Release No. 33-8612 (September 21, 2005) [70 FR 57130] in which the
Commission granted the authorization to publish the release adopting
the reorganized EDGAR Filer Manual; Release No. 33-8633 (November 1,
2005) [70 FR 67350] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 9.2; and
Release No 33-8656 (January 27, 2006) [71 FR 5596] in which we
implemented EDGAR Release 9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revisions are being made primarily to support the final rule \5\
adopted by the Commission to extend the current interactive data
voluntary reporting program to enable mutual funds voluntarily to
submit supplemental tagged information contained in the risk/return
summary section of their prospectuses from Form N-1A using the mutual
fund risk/return summary taxonomy developed by the Investment Company
Institute (``ICI''). As with the voluntary interactive data program
initiated by the Commission in 2005, in which companies voluntarily
agree to furnish financial data as exhibit documents in eXtensible
Business Reporting Language (``XBRL'') format, the risk/return summary
data submitted by mutual funds must also be provided as exhibit
documents in XBRL format. A mutual fund submitting tagged risk/return
summary information as an exhibit to Form N-1A will be required to name
each document ``EX-100'' as specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual. In
addition, the XBRL exhibit documents submitted require the use of the
appropriate version of standard taxonomies supported by EDGAR. Those
standard taxonomies, including the ICI's Mutual Fund Risk/Return
Summary Taxonomy, are provided on the SEC's ``Information for EDGAR
Filers'' webpage and include a listing of applicable XBRL schemas and
linkbases. Core XBRL, XBRL linkbase, eXtensible Markup Language (XML),
and XLink schemas and specifications are listed in the EDGAR Filer
Manual, Volume II: ``EDGAR Filing''. A mutual fund choosing to tag its
risk/return summary information also would continue to file this
information in HTML or ASCII format, as currently required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Release No. 33-8823 (July 11, 2007) [72 FR 39290].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The filer manual is also being revised to incorporate changes made
to support final rules previously adopted by the Commission and
implemented in EDGAR. Those rules and EDGAR changes are described
below.
     The termination of a foreign private issuer's 12(g)
reporting obligations \6\ regarding a class of debt securities and to
cease its duty to file reports under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Release No. 34-55540 (March 27, 2007) [72 FR 16934].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This revision included the addition of new submission types 15F-
12B, 15F-12B/A, 15F-12G, 15F-12G/A, 15F-15D, 15F-15D/A which can be
submitted using the EDGARLink software and Submission Template
3.
     The electronic filing of forms \7\ TA-1, TA-2 and TA-W;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Release No. 34-54864 (December 4, 2006) [71 FR 74698].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This revision included the addition of electronic forms for the
filing of the registration, annual report, and withdrawal from
registration of transfer agents. The EDGARLite application was
introduced as the tool for filers to use in the creation of their EDGAR
submissions. Filers download the EDGARLite package from the EDGAR
OnlineForms/XML Web site and install it on their desktop. EDGARLite
consists of a Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) software package,
Microsoft InfoPath \8\ (MS InfoPath), and electronic form templates
provided by the Commission. The forms are encoded in Extensible Markup
Language (XML) and are submitted to EDGAR using the OnlineForms/XML Web
site.
     Revisions to the accelerated filer definition \9\ and
accelerated periodic report filing deadlines under the Exchange Act;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ MS InfoPath 2003 or MS InfoPath 2007 can be used and comes
with the Professional Enterprise Edition of Microsoft Office or can
be purchased separately for approximately $200.
    \9\ See Release No. 33-8644 (December 21, 2005) [70 FR 76626].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The addition of a required ``Accelerated Filer Status'' indicator
to EDGARLink submission headers for 10-K, 10-K/A, 10-KT, 10-KT/A, 20-F,
and 20-F/A forms allows filers of these form types to select one of the
following accelerated filer classification values: Large Accelerated
Filer, Accelerated Filer, Non-accelerated Filer, and Not Applicable
(should be used if a filer is filing an amendment to a Form 10-K or
Form 20-F submission for a period that occurred before the accelerated
filer

definition went into effect). The accelerated filer classification is
directly related to the filer's reporting deadline as illustrated in
the following: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Release No. 33-8644 (December 21, 2005) [70 FR 76626].

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Revised deadlines for filing periodic
                                                 reports
       Category of filer       -----------------------------------------
                                                            Form 10-Q
                                  Form 10-K deadline        deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Accelerated Filer         75 days for fiscal      40 days.
 ($700MM or more).               years ending before
                                 December 15, 2006 and
                                 60 days for fiscal
                                 years ending on or
                                 after December 15,
                                 2006.
Accelerated Filer ($75MM or     75 days...............  40 days.
 more and less than $700MM).
Non-accelerated Filer (less     90 days...............  45 days.
 than $75MM).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional revisions were made to permit a domestic issuer to
indicate whether reporting obligations still exist after terminating
registration of a class of equity securities under the Exchange Act.
The addition of a required ``Duty to File Reports Remains'' indicator
in EDGARLink submission headers for submission types 15-12B, 15-12B/A,
15-12G, 15-12G/A, 15-15D and 15-15D/A allows filers of these form types
to indicate whether it is still subject to reporting obligations under
the Exchange Act.
    Finally, we removed from ``Table 3-5: Investment Company Submission
Types Accepted by EDGAR'' of the Filer Manual the reference to
submission types N-14AE and N-14AE/A for the filing of Form N-14. All
open-end investment companies, including those filed with automatic
effectiveness under Rule 488 (business combinations), are to use
submission types N-14 and N-14/A for these filings.
    For the extension of the current interactive data voluntary
reporting program to enable mutual funds voluntarily to submit
supplemental tagged information contained in the risk/return summary
section of their prospectuses being implemented in EDGAR Release 9.7,
the EDGARLink software and submission templates will not be updated.
Notice of the new release has previously been provided on the EDGAR
Filing Web site and on the Commission's public Web site. The discrete
updates are reflected in the updated Filer Manual Volumes.
    Along with adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301
of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into
the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the
following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. We will
post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address
for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml. You may

also obtain copies from Thomson Financial, the paper document
contractor for the Commission, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Since the Filer Manual relates solely to agency procedures or
practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).\11\ It follows that the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act \12\ do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \12\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule
amendments is August 20, 2007. In accordance with the APA,\13\ we find
that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30
days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to
Release 9.7 is scheduled to become available on August 20, 2007. The
Commission believes that it is necessary to coordinate the
effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the scheduled system
upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Basis

    We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6,
7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,\14\ Sections 3, 12,
13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Exchange Act,\15\ Section 319 of the
Trust Indenture Act of 1939,\16\ and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, and 78ll.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 77sss.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

    Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.

Text of the Amendment

    In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77sss(a),
78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll(d), 79t(a), 80a-8, 80a-
29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 232.301 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  232.301  EDGAR Filer Manual.

    Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by
the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out
the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The
requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are
set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: ``General
Information,'' Version 4 (August 2007). The requirements for filing on
EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II:
``EDGAR Filing,'' Version 5 (August 2007). Additional provisions
applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer
Manual, Volume III: ``N-SAR Supplement,'' Version 1 (September 2005).
All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the
Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director
of the

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be
timely received and accepted. You can obtain paper copies of the EDGAR
Filer Manual from the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m., or by calling Thomson Financial at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Electronic copies are available on the Commission's Web site. The
address for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml.

You can also photocopy the document at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.

    Dated: August 15, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary .
 [FR Doc. E7-16414 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54997-55007]
[DOCID:fr24se08-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 138

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0007]
RIN 1625-AB25

Consumer Price Index Adjustments of Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Limits of Liability--Vessels and Deepwater Ports

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to increase the limits of liability
for vessels and deepwater ports under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA 90) to account for inflation. This notice also sets forth the
methodology the Coast Guard proposes to use for this and future
adjustments to the OPA 90 limits of liability to reflect significant
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). These adjustments are
required by OPA 90 to preserve the deterrent effect and polluter pays
principle embodied in the OPA 90 liability provisions.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before November 24, 2008. Comments sent to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB
on or before November 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0007 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You must also send comments on collection of information to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget. To ensure that the comments are received on time, the preferred
method is by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include the docket
number and ``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' in the
subject line of the e-mail) or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternate,
though slower, method is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Benjamin White, National Pollution Funds Center, Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0007), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able
to read your original submission. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by
mail or 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 them 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. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

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 at
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0007) in the Docket ID box, and click
enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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, system of
records 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 Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Acronyms

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COFR Certificate of Financial Responsibility
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPI-U Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers, Not Seasonally
Adjusted, U.S. city average, All items, 1982-84 = 100
DPA Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.)
DOI United States Department of Interior
DOT United States Department of Transportation
DRPA Delaware River Protection Act of 2006, Title VI of the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, Public Law 109-241,
July 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 516
E.O. Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
Fund Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
MTR Marine transportation-related
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f)
NMTR Non-marine transportation-related
NPFC National Pollution Funds Center
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NTR Non-transportation-related
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPA 90 The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2701, et
seq.)
SBA Small Business Administration
U.S.C. United States Code
U.S.C.C.A.N. United States Code Congressional and Administrative
News

III. Background and Purpose

    In general, under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (33
U.S.C. 2701, et seq.) (OPA 90), responsible parties (i.e., the owners
and operators, including demise charterers) for a vessel or a facility
from which oil is discharged, or which poses a substantial threat of
discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines or the exclusive economic zone are liable for the removal
costs and damages specified in OPA 90, under 33 U.S.C. 2702(b), that
result from such an incident. (33 U.S.C. 2702(a)). Embodying the
polluter pays principle, this liability is strict, joint and
several.\1\

The responsible parties' total liability (including any removal costs
incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible parties) may, however, be
limited as provided in 33 U.S.C. 2704, except under certain
circumstances as provided in 33 U.S.C. 2704(c). In instances when the
limits of liability apply, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (the
Fund) is available to compensate the responsible parties and other
claimants for removal costs and damages in excess of the applicable
liability limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, Oil Pollution Desk Book, Environmental Law Institute
1991, hereinafter OPA 90 Desk Book, p. 88, H.R. Conf. Report 101-
653, at p. 102, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780 [``The term
`liable' or `liability' * * * is to be construed to be the standard
of liability * * * under section 311 of the [Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321]. * * * That standard of liability has
been determined repeatedly to be strict, joint and several
liability.'']; OPA 90 Desk Book p. 93, H.R. Conf. Report 101-653, at
118, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N., at 797 (Aug. 3, 1990) [''[T]he primary
responsibility to compensate victims of oil pollution rests with the
person responsible for the source of the pollution[.]''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OPA 90, at 33 U.S.C. 2704(a), sets forth the base dollar amounts of
the limits of liability for four specified source categories: Vessels,
onshore facilities, deepwater ports subject to the Deepwater Port Act
of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C.1501, et seq.) (DPA), and offshore
facilities other than deepwater ports subject to the DPA. In addition,
to prevent the real value of the base limits of liability from
depreciating over time as a result of inflation and to preserve the
polluter pays principle embodied in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. 2704(d) requires
the President to periodically increase the limits of liability by
regulation to reflect significant increases in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI).
    In Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, the President delegated
implementation of the limit of liability inflation adjustment
authorities under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d), dividing the responsibility among
various Federal agencies. Through a series of further delegations, the
Coast Guard was delegated the President's authority to adjust the
limits of liability for the following source categories: vessels,
deepwater ports subject to the DPA (including associated pipelines),
and transportation-related onshore facilities, not including pipelines,
motor carriers and railroads (hereinafter ``MTR onshore facilities'').
The Department of Transportation (DOT) was delegated the President's
authority to adjust the limits of liability for onshore pipelines,
motor carriers, and railways (hereinafter ``NMTR onshore facilities'').
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was delegated the
President's authority to adjust the limits of liability for non-
transportation-related onshore facilities (hereinafter ``NTR onshore
facilities''). Finally, the Department of Interior (DOI) was delegated
the President's authority to adjust the limits of liability for
offshore facilities and associated pipelines, other than deepwater
ports subject to the DPA.
    In addition, on August 4, 1995, the Department of Transportation,
which then included the Coast Guard, promulgated a facility-specific
limit for the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) under the deepwater
port limit of liability adjustment authority at 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2).
(60 FR 39849). That notice specifically contemplated that the LOOP
limit would be adjusted for inflation to prevent the real value of the
regulatory limit of liability for LOOP from depreciating over time.
    This proposed rule would be the first CPI adjustment, under 33
U.S.C. 2704(d), to the limits of liability applicable to responsible
parties for vessels, and deepwater ports subject to the DPA, including
LOOP. This rulemaking would also establish the methodology for making
future inflation adjustments to the OPA 90 limits of liability for all
source categories for which the Coast Guard has jurisdiction.
    To ensure consistent inflation adjustments to the limits of
liability for all OPA 90 source categories, the Coast Guard has
coordinated the adjustment methodology proposed by this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with DOT, EPA, and DOI. In addition, the
Coast Guard, DOT, EPA, and DOI have agreed to make inflation
adjustments to the limits of liability for MTR onshore facilities
(regulated by Coast Guard), NMTR onshore facilities (regulated by DOT),
NTR onshore facilities (regulated by EPA), and offshore facilities and
associated pipelines, other than deepwater ports subject to the DPA
(regulated by DOI), as part of the next inflation increase to the
limits of liability. This phased approach would establish the
adjustment methodology proposed by this NPRM for all source categories.
It also would allow time for additional interagency coordination
necessary to ensure consistency in implementing the CPI adjustments to
the limits of liability for onshore and offshore facilities.

How are ``not less than every 3 years'' and ``significant increases''
defined?

    As noted above, to prevent the real value of the base limits of
liability from depreciating over time as a result of inflation and to
preserve the polluter pays principle embodied in OPA 90, OPA 90
provides for periodic increases to the limits of liability to reflect
significant increases in the CPI. Specifically, 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4),
as amended by Section 603 of the Delaware River Protection Act of 2006,
Title VI of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006,
Public Law 109-241, July 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 516 (DRPA), requires that
the OPA 90 limits of liability be adjusted ``not less than every 3
years * * * to reflect significant increases in the Consumer Price
Index.''
    The word ``increases'' indicates clearly that Congress intended
that the limits be adjusted under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4) only for
inflation, and that there would be no decreases to the limits of
liability due to decreases in the CPI. It, however, is equally apparent
that, if Congress had wanted the adjustments to occur routinely every 3
years, the mandate would not have included the qualifier
``significant''. We looked first to the legislative history to help
interpret what Congress meant.
    Under OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. 2712 and 2713, when a responsible party is
entitled to a limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704, the Fund is
available to pay the removal costs and damages in excess of the limits.
But Congress did not intend this authority to shift responsibility away
from the responsible parties onto the victims of oil spills or the
Fund.
    OPA 90 instead, imposes a duty on the responsible party in the
first instance to reimburse third-party claimants and the Fund for
removal costs and damages whenever an oil spill occurs. See, footnote
1, above. See also, R.V. Randle, ``The Oil Pollution Act of 1990: Its
Provisions, Intent, and Effects'', OPA 90 Desk Book, p. 3 [OPA's claims
and financial responsibility ``procedures make very clear that the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund is the fund of last resort to pay claims
under the Act. Instead the responsible parties and their guarantors are
the primary insurers against claims for removal costs and oil discharge
damages''].
    To that end, when enacting OPA 90, Congress increased the limits of
liability from those contained in prior laws to levels Congress
believed would preserve the deterrent effects necessary to promote
caution and best practices by the shipping industry. In that respect,
Congress intended that the Fund would only be available as a last
resort for catastrophic events. (See, OPA 90 Desk Book, p. 196, House
Report 101-242, Part 2, p. 36 (September 18, 1989) [``[The new]
liability limits are designed to insure due care in transporting oil as
historically all but the most catastrophic spills would be fully paid
for by the spiller at these levels. The fund is designed to cover
catastrophic spills.''])
    The CPI adjustment provisions of OPA 90 originated in Section
102(c)(4)(B) of the Senate Bill, S. 686. (See, OPA 90 Desk Book, p.
504, and Statements On Introduced Bills And

Joint Resolutions, 132 Cong. Rec. S12185-01 (Tuesday, September 9,
1986). The Senate Report for S. 686 includes the following explanation
for the provision:

    ``In several of the existing Federal laws on oil spills, the
liability limits have not been increased in 10 years so that, in
real dollars, the liability limits have been decreasing over time.
In order to prevent further diminution of compensation, section
102(c)(4)(B) requires the President to adjust the limits on
liability by regulation not less often than every three years to
take into account significant increases in the Consumer Price
Index.''

    The Senate Report clarifies that Congress was concerned that
inflation would erode responsible party liability and shift the
economic risk of oil spills onto the Fund. (See, Pub. L. 101-380, Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, S. REP. 101-94, July 28, 1989). Congress also
clearly believed waiting 10 years to adjust the limits was too long,
and that adjustments in regular, more frequent, smaller increments
would better support the polluter pays public policy objectives of OPA
90.
    The Conference Report Joint Explanatory Statement, at p. 106, also
describes the mandate as requiring adjustments ``at least once every
three years'', to reflect significant increases in the CPI. (See, OPA
90 Desk Book, p. 89, H.R. CONF. REP. 101-653, Joint Explanatory
Statement, August 1, 1990.) This explanation indicates that the words
``not less than'' mean that adjustments are permitted, but not
required, more frequently than every three years. The Conference Report
does not, however, explain what Congress meant by the word
``significant''.
    There is no other discussion in the OPA 90 legislative history, and
we found no other Federal statute that uses the same wording. Congress,
therefore, plainly left it to the President to give meaning to the term
``significant''.
    The plain meaning of ``significant'' is ``meaningful'' (see,
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1988)), but
meaningful in respect to what? Consistent with the Congressional focus
on preserving OPA 90's deterrent effect and avoiding risk shifting to
the Fund, the Coast Guard analyzed historical data on incident costs.
We found that even small increases in the CPI can have significant risk
shifting impacts. (See, Report On Oil Pollution Act Liability Limits,
U.S. Department Of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard,
transmitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on January 5, 2007.) For example, based on our further
analysis of the historical cost averages in that report, a 1 percent
per year increase in the CPI will shift incident cost risk from the
responsible party to the Fund by an estimated $900,000 over three
years.
    When adjustments to limits of liability are delayed, the Fund will,
with inflation, inevitably be at risk for a higher share of incident
costs than intended by OPA 90. Consequently, responsible party risk is
reduced.
    In consideration of the historical data, the Coast Guard believes
it is reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent to treat any
cumulative change in the CPI over a three year period of 3 percent or
greater as significant and as the appropriate threshold for triggering
an adjustment to the limits of liability.
    A triennial 3 percent threshold would result in a predictable,
regular schedule of smaller-increment adjustments for inflation. It
would thereby maintain the balance Congress sought to strike between
responsible party risk and Fund risk.

How does the Coast Guard propose to calculate the CPI adjustment to the
limits of liability for Coast Guard source categories?

    We propose calculating the CPI adjustments to the limits of
liability for Coast Guard source categories using the following
formula:

    New limit of liability = Current limit of liability value +
(Current limit of liability value x percent change in the CPI from
the time the limit of liability was established, or last adjusted by
statute or regulation, whichever is later, to the present), then
rounded to the closest $100.

Which CPI does the Coast Guard propose to use?

    The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
publishes a variety of inflation indices. We propose using the ``All
Urban Consumers, Not Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. city average, All items,
1982-84=100'' index, also known as ``CPI-U''. This is the most current
and broadest index. It also is commonly relied on in insurance policies
and other commercial transactions with automatic inflation protection,
by the media, and by economic analysts.

How would a percent change in the CPI-U be calculated?

    We propose using the escalation formula developed by BLS for
calculating percent changes in the CPI-U that is described in Fact
Sheet 00-1, U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlights, ``How to Use
the Consumer Price Index for Escalation'', September 2000, available
from the BLS online at http://www.bls.gov. The following example
illustrates the BLS escalation formula, using a hypothetical three-year
adjustment period:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPI-U for Current Period (2006)..........  201.6.
Minus CPI-U for Previous Period (2003)...  184.0.
Equals index point change................  17.6.
Divided by CPI-U for previous period.....  184.0.
Equals...................................  0.096.
Result multiplied by 100.................  0.096 x 100.
Equals percent change in the CPI-U.......  9.6 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ``Current Period'' and ``Previous Period'' values used in this
hypothetical are available from the BLS online at http://data.bls.gov.

What ``Previous Period'' dates does the Coast Guard propose to use for
this rulemaking?

    The ``Previous Period'' we propose using for adjustments to the
LOOP limit of liability is 1995. This is based on the date the LOOP
limit of liability was established by regulation, which was August 4,
1995. (See, 60 FR 39849). The LOOP limit of liability has not been
adjusted since it was established in 1995. The ``Previous Period'' we
propose using for adjustments to the limits of liability in 33 U.S.C.
2704(a), which would apply to all Coast Guard delegated source
categories other than LOOP, is 2006. This is based on the date of
enactment of the DRPA, which was July 11, 2006, and is the last date
the limits of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a) were adjusted.
    We note in respect to the limits of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)
that DRPA only increased the limits for vessels. We, therefore,
considered whether to use a 1990 ``Previous Period'' (based on the date
of enactment of OPA 90) to adjust the limits of liability for the non-
vessel source categories in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a). Using a 1990 ``Previous
Period'' would result in an increase to the limits of liability for the
non-vessel source categories of more than 60 percent.
    The legislative history for DRPA, however, indicates that Congress
only increased the base limits of liability for vessels in 2006 because
the vessel limits were the only limits of liability in 33 U.S.C.
2704(a) that were not adequate. Specifically, Congress was advised in
Congressional testimony and reports to Congress that the only oil spill
incidents since enactment of OPA 90 that had resulted in claims against
the Fund by responsible parties for removal costs and damages in excess
of the limits of

liability were vessel incidents.\2\ By comparison, no incident
involving the other source categories had exceeded the base limits of
liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a). Thus, only the vessel base limits of
liability needed to be increased at that time to preserve the deterrent
effect and polluter pays principle embodied in the OPA 90 liability
provisions. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of
2006: Hearing Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation (April 27,
2006) (Statements of Rear Admiral Thomas Gilmour, Assistant
Commandant For Prevention, and Jan Lane, Director, National
Pollution Funds Center); ``Report on Implementation of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990'', U.S. Coast Guard (May 12, 2005) (report
under Section 705 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
of 2004, Public Law 108-293, to the Chairmen of the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Senate Committee on
Environmental and Public Works, and the Senate Committee, Commerce,
Science and Transportation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What time interval CPI-U does the Coast Guard propose to use for the
adjustments?

    BLS publishes the CPI-U in both monthly and annual periods. For
consistency and simplicity, we propose using the annual period CPI-U
(hereinafter the ``Annual CPI-U'') rather than the monthly period CPI-
U. In this way we can avoid having to publish distinct percent change
values for the different sources and source categories in future
adjustment cycles, based on the month when each source or source
category's limit was established or last adjusted.
    For example, as noted, DRPA updated the limits of liability in 33
U.S.C. 2704(a) on July 11, 2006. But DRPA did not affect the currently
applicable limit of liability for LOOP, which was established by
regulation on August 4, 1995 (60 FR 39849). Thus, if we were to use the
monthly CPI-U we would always have to calculate the adjustments for
these two groups using the July and August monthly CPI-U values.
    Under the approach proposed here, the formula for the first set of
regulatory inflation increases to the limits of liability would yield
two Annual CPI-U percent change values, one based on the 1995 LOOP
``Previous Period'' and one based on the 2006 ``Previous Period''
applicable to vessels and other deepwater ports. By using the same
``Current Period'' Annual CPI-U, as proposed by this rulemaking, we
would be able to increase the limits of liability for all vessels and
deepwater ports in the next adjustment cycle based on a single Annual
CPI-U percent change value.

Which Annual CPI-U ``Previous Period'' and ``Current Period'' values
does the Coast Guard propose to use for the first inflation adjustments
to the limits of liability?

    For the ``Previous Period'' values, as noted above, we propose
using the 1995 Annual CPI-U for LOOP and the 2006 Annual CPI-U for the
other Coast Guard source categories.
    For the ``Current Period'' value, due to the time lag for BLS
publication of the Annual CPI-U and the time it takes to promulgate
regulations, we propose adjusting the limits of liability using the
2008 Annual CPI-U.
    The ``Previous Period'' and estimated ``Current Period'' values we
propose to use are as follows:
    (a) For LOOP, the ``Previous Period'' using the 1995 Annual CPI-U
would be 152.4; the ``Current Period'', using the 2008 Annual CPI-U, as
estimated for purposes of this proposal, would be 213.6.
    (b) For vessels and deepwater ports other than LOOP, the ``Previous
Period'' using the 2006 Annual CPI-U would be 201.6; the ``Current
Period'', using the 2008 Annual CPI-U, as estimated for purposes of
this proposal, would be 213.6.
    Because the 2008 Annual CPI-U will not be published until after the
date of this proposal, the 2008 Annual CPI-U ``Current Period'' values
shown here are a forecast using the average of the monthly CPI-U for
the months of January 2008 through May 2008. We will use the 2008
Annual CPI-U published by the BLS in the final rule.
    Inserting these values into the BLS escalation formula yields the
following (estimated) percent changes in the Annual CPI-U (rounded to
one decimal place):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For LOOP......................................................      40.2
For vessels and other deepwater ports.........................       6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What would the adjusted limits be?

    Inserting the estimated percent changes in the Annual CPI-U into
the adjustment formula would result in the following estimated proposed
limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports (rounded to the
closest $100):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current limit of    Proposed limit of
         Source category               liability           liability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Vessels:
    (1) For a tank vessel         The greater of      The greater of
     greater than 3,000 gross      $3,000 per gross    $3,200 per gross
     tons with a single hull,      ton or              ton or
     including a single-hull       $22,000,000.        $23,320,000.
     vessel fitted with double
     sides only or a double
     bottom only.
    (2) For a tank vessel         The greater of      The greater of
     greater than 3,000 gross      $1,900 per gross    $2,000 per gross
     tons, other than a vessel     ton or              ton or
     referred to in (a)(1).        $16,000,000.        $16,960,000.
    (3) For a tank vessel less    The greater of      The greater of
     than or equal to 3,000        $3,000 per gross    $3,200 per gross
     gross tons with a single      ton or $6,000,000.  ton or
     hull, including a single-                         $6,360,000.
     hull vessel fitted with
     double sides only or a
     double bottom only.
    (4) For a tank vessel less    The greater of      The greater of
     than or equal to 3,000        $1,900 per gross    $2,000 per gross
     gross tons, other than a      ton or $4,000,000.  ton or
     vessel referred to in (3).                        $4,240,000.
    (5) For any other vessel....  The greater of      The greater of
                                   $950 per gross      $1,000 per gross
                                   ton or $800,000.    ton or $848,000.
(b) Deepwater ports subject to
 the DPA:
    (1) For a deepwater port      $350,000,000......  $371,000,000.
     subject to the DPA, other
     than the Louisiana Offshore
     Oil Port (LOOP).
    (2) For LOOP................  $62,000,000.......  $86,924,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How will the percent change for subsequent periods be calculated?

    Although this rulemaking has been initiated to implement the first
CPI-related increases to the OPA 90 limits of liability under 33 U.S.C.
2704(d) for vessels and deepwater ports, the Coast Guard proposes to
use the same methodology for subsequent CPI adjustments to the limits
of liability for all Coast Guard source categories.
    Except in instances when increases in the Annual CPI-U over any
three-year period were not significant, we would calculate future
adjustments using the cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U for
the previous three available years. Thus, for the 2012 increase
(assuming a significant increase in the Annual CPI-U), we would
calculate the Annual CPI-U change using the 2008 Annual CPI-U as the
``Previous Period'' value for vessels and deepwater ports including
LOOP, and the 2011 Annual CPI-U as the ``Current Period'' value. Note
that we would not be able to use the 2012 Annual CPI-U, due to the time
lag for BLS publication of the Annual CPI-U. We would use the 2006
Annual CPI-U as the ``Previous Period'' value for MTR facilities.

What if the ``significant'' threshold is not met?

    After the first adjustment, we propose that, for any three-year
period in which the percent change is not significant, in that the
cumulative change is less than 3 percent over three years, we would
publish a notice of no adjustment in the Federal Register, and revisit
the issue each subsequent year until the cumulative percent change in
the Annual CPI-U from the last adjustment equals 3 percent or greater.
We would then base the adjustment on the Annual CPI-U change since the
last adjustment.
    Thus, if we determined in 2012 that the cumulative percent change
in the Annual CPI-U from 2008 to 2011 was 2 percent, we would not
adjust the limits that year. In the following year, 2013, if the 3
percent change threshold were met, we would adjust the limits of
liability for all vessels and deepwater ports based on the Annual CPI-U
percent change from 2008 as the ``Previous Period'' to 2012 as the
``Current Period''. Note that we would not be able to use the 2013
Annual CPI-U, due to the time lag for BLS publication of the Annual
CPI-U. The next adjustment would be three years later, in 2016,
assuming the cumulative percentage increase between the 2012 Annual
CPI-U and the 2015 Annual CPI-U was significant.

How does the Coast Guard plan to promulgate subsequent periodic
adjustments to the limits of liability in the regulations?

    This notice and comment rulemaking provides the public the
opportunity to comment on the inflation index (Annual CPI-U),
significance threshold, and calculation methodology the Coast Guard
proposes to use for the first and subsequent CPI adjustments to the
limits of liability. Once these technical issues are resolved in the
final rule for the first set of CPI adjustments proposed here, we do
not anticipate future CPI adjustments to the limits of liability will
be controversial.
    In the next rulemaking to adjust the limits of liability, the Coast
Guard will work with the other delegated agencies (DOT, EPA and DOI) on
a coordinated rulemaking to adjust the OPA 90 limits of liability for
all source categories. This would, include adjustments to the limits of
liability for onshore and offshore facilities based on the Annual CPI-U
percent change from 2006 as the ``Previous Period'' to 2012 as the
``Current Period''. The issues to be considered at that time will
include whether to propose that routine CPI adjustments be implemented
in the future using a different procedure whenever the level of
inflation reaches or exceeds the threshold significance amount. Those
issues will also include whether to propose using the adjustment
procedure proposed by this rulemaking at Sec.  138.240 in a direct
final rule, or implementing future CPI increases through self-executing
regulatory provisions without additional rulemaking procedures. For
example, if increases to the OPA 90 limits of liability were
implemented without additional rulemaking procedures, the amount of the
increases would be calculated in the same manner as proposed here, and
notice of the increased limits of liability would be given in the
Federal Register and published in media such as the agencies' Internet
pages, in advance of the effective date of the increased limits of
liability.
    If we propose a self-executing approach, we would also consider
whether to propose provisions to ensure that abnormally large increases
in inflation would not automatically be translated into abnormally
large increases in the limits of liability. One possible such provision
could be to require a notice and comment rulemaking whenever the level
of inflation for a given period exceeds a set limit. Another could be
to reserve the Coast Guard and other agencies' discretion to conduct a
notice and comment rulemaking for any adjustment when the agencies
conclude that it would be in the public's interest to do so.
    Either of these approaches may be more practical and flexible, and
would promote predictability and consistency. The specific procedures
for future adjustments would be determined during the second
rulemaking.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Subpart B. This proposed rule would increase the limits of
liability for vessels and deepwater ports in 33 CFR part 138, subpart
B, for inflation, in accordance with the Coast Guard's delegated
authority for making CPI adjustments under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d). It also
would establish the formula for making inflation adjustments to the OPA
90 limits of liability for all Coast Guard source categories, and will
thereby facilitate future adjustments to the limits of liability to
reflect significant increases in the CPI.
    The Coast Guard first proposed the creation of subpart B in the
Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels and Deepwater
Ports) NPRM (73 FR 6642, February 5, 2008; and 73 FR 8250, February 13,
2008) (hereinafter the ``COFR Rule'') for the purpose of stating the
OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports, including
LOOP, in the regulations. The final COFR Rule was published in the
Federal Register on September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53691).
    Section 138.220. We are proposing to insert a new Sec.  138.220 to
add definitions to subpart B, and to renumber Sec.  138.220 as set
forth in the COFR Rule as Sec.  138.230. New Sec.  138.220 would add
definitions for ``Annual CPI-U'' and ``Director, NPFC'', and would
cross-reference certain terms that are used in subpart B and defined in
OPA 90.
    Section 138.230. We are proposing to increase the limits of
liability for vessels and deepwater ports, including LOOP, from those
set forth in Sec.  138.220 of the COFR Rule (proposed Sec.  138.230),
to reflect significant increases in the CPI.
    Additionally, we propose adding and reserving new subparagraphs
Sec.  138.230(b)(2)(ii) and (c). This will ensure these subparagraphs
are available for use for any future rulemaking to establish new
facility-specific limits of liability for deepwater ports under 33
U.S.C. 2704(d)(2), and to add the limits of liability for MTR onshore
facilities, which we expect to adjust during the next adjustment cycle.
    The limits of liability given in this section are estimates, which
were calculated using an estimated Annual

CPI-U. The updated limits of liability in the final rule will be
calculated using the most recent Annual CPI-U available at the time of
publication of the rule, and may be different than the estimates in
this NPRM.
    Section 138.240. We propose adding new Sec.  138.240 in 33 CFR part
138, subpart B to set out the procedure the Coast Guard proposes to use
to calculate adjustments to the limits of liability contained in
proposed Sec.  138.230 for significant increases to the CPI.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    A draft Regulatory Assessment is available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble. A summary of the Assessment follows:
    There are two regulatory costs that are expected from this proposed
rule. Regulatory Cost 1: An increased cost of liability to responsible
parties of vessels and deepwater ports. Regulatory Cost 2: An increased
cost for establishing and maintaining evidence of financial
responsibility to responsible parties of vessels. (Deepwater ports are
not expected to have any increased evidence of financial responsibility
costs as a result of this proposed rule.)
Discussion of Regulatory Cost 1
    This proposed rulemaking could increase the dollar amount of
removal costs and damages a responsible party of a vessel or deepwater
port would be responsible to pay in the event of a discharge, or
substantial threat of discharge, of oil (hereafter an ``OPA 90
incident''). Regulatory Cost 1 would, however, only be incurred by a
responsible party if an OPA 90 incident results in removal costs and
damages that exceed the vessel or deepwater port's current limit of
liability. In any such case, the difference between the current limit
of liability amount and the proposed limit of liability amount would be
the increased cost to the responsible party.
Affected Population--Vessels
    Coast Guard data, as of May 2007, indicate that, for the years 1991
through 2006, 41 OPA 90 incidents involving vessels resulted in removal
costs and damages in excess of the current limits of liability (an
average of approximately three OPA 90 incidents per year). For the
purpose of this analysis, we assume that three OPA 90 incidents
involving vessels would occur per year over a 10-year analysis period
(2009-2018), with removal costs and damages reaching or exceeding the
proposed limits of liability for vessels.
Affected Population--Deepwater Ports
    At this time, LOOP is the only deepwater port subject to OPA 90. To
date, LOOP has not had an OPA 90 incident that resulted in removal
costs and damages in excess of LOOP's current limit of liability of $62
Million. Accordingly, for the purpose of this analysis, we assume that
only one OPA 90 incident would occur at LOOP over the 10-year analysis
period (2009-2018), with removal costs and damages reaching or
exceeding the proposed limit of liability for LOOP.
    There are two liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater ports currently
in operation (Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge and Northeast Gateway). In
2003 and 2007, respectively, however, the Coast Guard determined that
the designs of the two LNG deepwater ports did not meet the definition
of an OPA 90 facility under 33 U.S.C. 2701(9). This is because neither
deepwater port was designed to use structures, equipment or devices for
purposes of exploring, drilling, producing, storing, handling,
transferring, processing, or transporting oil. Therefore, unless the
design and operations at either LNG port is changed, the port will not
be affected by this proposed rule. We, therefore, assume that LOOP
would be the only existing deepwater port that could incur increased
removal costs and damages as a result of this proposed rule.
Cost Summary Regulatory Cost 1
    The average annual cost of this rulemaking resulting from the three
forecasted vessel OPA 90 incidents per year is estimated to be between
$1.5 Million and $2.9 Million (non-discounted Dollars). The average
annual cost of this rulemaking resulting from the one forecasted LOOP
OPA 90 incident over 10 years is estimated to be between $2.4 Million
and $2.7 Million (non-discounted Dollars). The 10-year (2009-2018)
present value at a 3 percent discount rate of this regulatory cost
(vessels and LOOP) is estimated to be between $34.1 Million and $49.7
Million. The 10-year (2009-2018) present value at a 7 percent discount
rate of this regulatory cost (vessels and LOOP) is estimated to be
between $29.2 Million and $42.5 Million. The low end of the range
assumes a 5 percent increase in the limits of liability for vessels and
deepwater ports, except LOOP, and a 39 percent increase in the limit of
liability for LOOP. The high end of the range assumes a 10 percent
increase in the limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports,
except LOOP, and a 44 percent increase in the limit of liability for
LOOP. These ranges were analyzed because the value of the 2008 Annual
CPI-U would not be known until after the publication of this NPRM.
Discussion of Regulatory Cost 2
    Under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2716) responsible parties of vessels and
deepwater ports are required to establish and maintain evidence of
financial responsibility to prove that they have the ability to pay for
removal costs and damages in the event of an OPA 90 incident up to
their applicable limits of liability. Because this proposed rulemaking
would increase the limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports,
responsible parties may incur additional cost associated with the
corresponding requirements for establishing and maintaining evidence of
financial responsibility.
Affected Population--Vessels
    The proposed rule would potentially increase the cost associated
with establishing financial responsibility under OPA 90 and 33 CFR part
138 for responsible parties of vessels in two ways. Responsible parties
using commercial insurance as their method of financial guaranty could
incur higher insurance premiums. Responsible parties using self-
insurance as their method of financial guaranty would need to seek out
and acquire commercial insurance for vessels they operate if they were
no longer eligible for self-insurance based on their working capital
and net worth. There are approximately 17,064 vessels using commercial
insurance and 741 vessels using self-insurance methods of guaranty.
Affected Population--Deepwater Ports
    As previously discussed (see Affected Population--Deepwater Ports
above under Regulatory Cost 1), LOOP is the only deepwater port that
would be affected by this proposed rule. An

increase in the LOOP limit of liability of the magnitude proposed by
this rulemaking, however, is not expected to increase the cost
associated with establishing and maintaining LOOP's evidence of
financial responsibility. This is because LOOP uses a facility-specific
method of providing evidence of financial responsibility to the Coast
Guard. Specifically, LOOP is insured under a policy issued by Oil
Insurance Limited (OIL) of Bermuda up to $150 Million per OPA 90
incident and a $225 Million annual aggregate. The Coast Guard has
historically accepted the OIL policy, along with the policy's $50
Million minimum net worth and minimum working capital requirements, as
evidence of financial responsibility. The Coast Guard does not expect
that an increase in the LOOP limit of liability of the magnitude
proposed by this rulemaking would change the terms of the OIL policy,
result in an increased premium for the OIL policy, or require LOOP to
have higher minimum net worth or working capital requirements.
Cost Summary--Regulatory Cost 2
    For purposes of calculating Regulatory Cost 2, we assume that this
rulemaking would cause the insurance premiums for vessels that are now
commercially insured to increase by 5 percent from current levels. We
also assume that 2 percent of the vessel responsible parties who use
self-insurance to provide evidence of financial responsibility would
migrate to commercial insurance. Depending on the particular year and
the discount rate used, annual costs of this proposed rule range from
$1.7 Million to $3.4 Million per year. The 10-year (2009-2018) present
value at a 3 percent discount rate of this regulatory cost is estimated
to be between $27.8 Million and $28.6 Million. The 10-year (2009-2018)
present value at a 7 percent discount rate of this regulatory cost is
estimated to be between $23.8 Million and $24.6 Million. The ranges
reflect two vessel profiles that were developed and analyzed separately
to account for the uncertainty, due to data gaps, of when existing
single-hulled tank vessels would be phased out.
Total Cost--Regulatory Cost 1 + Regulatory Cost 2
    Depending on the particular year and the discount rate used, annual
costs of this proposed rule range from $3.8 Million to $9.0 Million per
year. The 10-year present value of the total cost of this proposed rule
(Regulatory Cost 1 + Regulatory Cost 2) at a 3 percent discount rate
would be between $61.9 Million and $78.3 Million. The 10-year present
value of the total cost of this proposed rule (Regulatory Cost 1 +
Regulatory Cost 2) at a 7 percent discount rate would be between $53
Million and $67 Million.
Benefits
    With respect to benefits, this proposed rule is expected to:
     Ensure that the real value of the OPA 90 limits of
liability keep pace with inflation over time;
     Preserve the polluter pays principle embodied in OPA 90
and, thereby, ensure that limited Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund)
resources can be optimally utilized in responding to future incidents;
and
     Result in a slight reduction in substandard shipping in
United States waterways and ports because insurers would be less likely
to insure substandard vessels to this new level of liability.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 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. Based on the threshold analysis conducted below, we determined
that an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was not
necessary for this proposed rule.
Regulatory Cost 1
    Small entities from more than 80 North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes could be affected by Regulatory
Cost 1 of this proposed rule. Regulatory Cost 1 would, however, only be
incurred by a small entity if an OPA 90 incident resulted in removal
costs and damages that exceeded the vessel or deepwater port's current
limit of liability.
    Because of the large number of small entities that own or operate
vessels which carry oil as cargo or fuel, it is not possible to predict
which specific NAICS Codes might be affected by this proposed rule in
any given year. Therefore, to quantify the potential economic impact of
Regulatory Cost 1 on small entities that own or operate vessels, we
have estimated a high end range of this cost based on historical spill
cost data for all vessels.
    Coast Guard data, as of May 2007, indicate that for the years 1991
through 2006 only 41 vessel incidents exceeded the current limits of
liability (average of approximately three per year). For the purpose of
this analysis, we assume that three OPA 90 incidents involving vessels
would occur per year throughout the 10-year analysis period (2009-
2018), with removal costs and damages reaching or exceeding the
proposed limits of liability for vessels.
    Assuming a worst case scenario that all of the forecasted incidents
would involve small entities, there would be only three small entities
affected annually by Regulatory Cost 1. As discussed above in the
Executive Order 12866 analysis, Coast Guard incident cost data indicate
that the average annual cost of Regulatory Cost 1 for vessels is
between $1.5 Million to $2.9 Million (non-discounted Dollars). Dividing
the average annual cost by the three small entities possibly affected
equals a per small entity cost of between $487,200 and $974,400 (non-
discounted Dollars).
    As previously discussed, the only deepwater port affected by this
proposed rule is LOOP. LOOP, however, does not meet U.S. Small Business
Administration's (SBA's) criteria to be categorized as a small entity.
Regulatory Cost 2
    In this analysis, we researched vessel and deepwater port
responsible party size and revenue data using public and proprietary
business databases. We then determined which entities were small based
on the SBA's criteria on business size standards for all sectors of the
NAICS.
    There are an estimated 600 small entities that would be affected by
Regulatory Cost 2. These represent those vessel responsible parties
required by 33 CFR 138 subpart A to provide evidence of financial
responsibility to the Coast Guard. As discussed above, LOOP is not
classified as a small entity.
    We found that 82 distinct NAICS codes were represented in the
population of small entities (of which 32 contained more than five
entities). For those small entities using commercial insurance, this
proposed rule could result in an increased average annual cost of $183
per vessel. An estimated 2 percent of small entities using self-
insurance are expected to migrate to commercial insurance at an
increased average annual cost of $7,540 per vessel.
    Of the small entities impacted, 98 percent could experience an
annual economic impact of less than 1 percent of their annual sales.
The remaining 2 percent could experience an annual

economic impact of less than 2 percent of their annual sales.
    Based on this threshold analysis, we certify that implementation of
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The Coast
Guard, however, is seeking comments to inform our decision regarding
the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we 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 the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult Benjamin White, National
Pollution Funds Center, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.
    Title: Consumer Price Index Adjustments of Oil Pollution Act of
1990 Limits of Liability--Vessels and Deepwater Ports
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Not later than 90 days
after the effective date of the final rule, operators would be required
to establish evidence of financial responsibility to the applicable
amounts determined under 33 CFR part 138, subpart A, Sec.  138.80(f),
based on the limits of liability as adjusted by this rulemaking.
    This proposed rule would revise the current information collection
entitled, Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (vessels)
(Office of Management and Budget Control Number 1625-0046, Approved
December 7, 2006).
    Need for Information: This information collection is necessary to
enforce the evidence of financial responsibility requirements at 33 CFR
part 138, subpart A. Without this collection, it would not be possible
for the Coast Guard to know which operators were in compliance with the
financial responsibility applicable amounts determined under 33 CFR
part 138, subpart A, and which were not. Vessels not in compliance
would be subject to the penalties provided in 33 CFR 138.140.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use this
information to verify that vessel operators have established evidence
of financial responsibility to reflect the financial responsibility
applicable amounts determined under 33 CFR part 138, subpart A, based
on the limits of liability as adjusted by this rulemaking.
    Description of the Respondents: Operators, as this term is defined
in 33 CFR part 138, subpart A, and guarantors of vessels that require
COFRs under 33 CFR part 138, Subpart A.
    Number of Respondents: There are approximately 900 United States
operators of vessels, 9,000 foreign operators of vessels, and 100
guarantors that would submit information to the Coast Guard.
    Frequency of Response: This is a one-time submission occurring not
later than 90 days after the effective date of the final rule.
Subsequent submissions that may be required as a result of regulatory
changes to limits of liability under 33 U.S.C 2704(d) are not included
here because they will be addressed in future rulemakings.
    Burden of Response: Increased burden associated with reporting
requirements:

10,000 operators and guarantors x 1.0 hours per response = 10,000
hours.

    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: We used the ``All Occupations''
average hourly wage of $18.84 per hour, found in the May 2006 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States, published by
the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, and applied a 43
percent overhead factor to estimate employee benefits to calculate the
burdened labor rate. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that total
employee benefits is approximately 30 percent of total compensation. By
applying a benefit factor of 43 percent to the hour wage, we calculate
total compensation:

$18.84 per hour + ($18.84 per hour x 43 percent) = $27 per hour.

    We then multiplied the number of net burden hours by the burdened
labor rate calculated above.
    Increased burden associated with the reporting requirements:

10,000 hours x $27 per hour = $270,000.

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we
will publish notice in the  Federal Register of OMB's decision to
approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect 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 rule is not an economically significant rule and would 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 it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are 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 Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination, under the Instructions, that
this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List''
supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. 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 138

    Hazardous materials transportation, Insurance, Limits of Liability,
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 138 to read as follows:

PART 138--FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WATER POLLUTION (VESSELS)
AND OPA 90 LIMITS OF LIABILITY (VESSELS AND DEEPWATER PORTS)

    1. The authority citation for part 138 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2704; 33 U.S.C. 2716, 2716a; 42 U.S.C.
9608, 9609; Sec. 1512 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-296, Title XV, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2310 (6 U.S.C. 552);
E.O. 12580, Sec. 7(b), 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 198; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 13286, Sec. 89 (68 FR 10619, Feb. 28,
2003); Department of Homeland Security Delegation Nos. 0170.1 and
5110. Section 138.30 also issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
2103, 46 U.S.C. 14302.

    2. Revise Subpart B to read as follows:

Subpart B--OPA 90 Limits of Liability (Vessels and Deepwater Ports)

Sec.
138.200 Scope.
138.210 Applicability.
138.220 Definitions.
138.230 Limits of liability.
138.240 Procedure for calculating limit of liability adjustments for
inflation.

Subpart B--OPA 90 Limits of Liability (Vessels and Deepwater Ports)

Sec.  138.200.  Scope.

    This subpart sets forth the limits of liability for vessels and
deepwater ports under Section 1004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 2704) (OPA 90), including adjustments to the limits
of liability under Section 1004(d) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)). This
subpart also sets forth the procedures for adjusting the limits of
liability for inflation.

Sec.  138.210.  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to you if you are a responsible party for a
vessel as defined under Section 1001(37) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2701(37))
or a deepwater port as defined under Section 1001(6) of OPA 90 (33
U.S.C. 2701(6)), unless your OPA 90 liability is unlimited under
Section 1004(c) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(c)).

Sec.  138.220.  Definitions.

    (a) As used in this subpart, the following terms have the meaning
as set forth in Section 1001 of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2701): responsible
party, vessel, and deepwater port.
    (b) As used in this subpart--
    CPI-U means the Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers, Not
Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. city average, All items, 1982-84=100,
published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Director, NPFC means the head of the U.S. Coast Guard National
Pollution Funds Center (NPFC).
    Double hull has the meaning set forth in 33 CFR part 157.
    Single hull means any hull other than a double hull.

Sec.  138.230.  Limits of liability.

    (a) Vessels. The OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels are--
    (1) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons with a single
hull, including a single-hull vessel fitted with double sides only or a
double bottom only, the greater of $3,200 per gross ton or $23,320,000;
    (2) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons with a double
hull, the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $19,960,000.
    (3) For a tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons with a
single hull, including a single-hull vessel fitted with double sides
only or a double bottom only, the greater of $3,200 per gross ton or
$6,360,000.
    (4) For a tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons with a
double hull, the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $4,240,000.
    (5) For any other vessel, the greater of $1,000 per gross ton or
$848,000.
    (b) Deepwater ports. The OPA 90 limits of liability for deepwater
ports are--
    (1) Generally. For any deepwater port other than a deepwater port
with a limit of liability established by regulation under Section
1004(d)(2) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)) and set forth in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, $371,000,000;
    (2) For deepwater ports with limits of liability established by
regulation under Section 1004(d)(2) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)):
    (i) For the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), $86,924,000; and
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (c) [Reserved].

Sec.  138.240  Procedure for calculating limit of liability adjustments
for inflation.

    (a) Formula for calculating a cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI-U. The Director, NPFC, calculates the cumulative percent
change in the Annual CPI-U from the year the limit of liability was
established, or last adjusted by statute or regulation, whichever is
later, to the present year, using the escalation formula described in
Fact Sheet 00-1, U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlights, ``How to
Use the Consumer Price Index for Escalation'', September 2000. This
cumulative percent change value is rounded to one decimal place.
    (b) Significance threshold. Every three years from the year a limit
of liability was established, or last adjusted by statute or
regulation, whichever is later, the Director, NPFC, will evaluate
whether the cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U since that
date has reached a significance threshold of 3 percent or greater. For
any three-year period in which the cumulative percent change in the
Annual CPI-U is less than 3 percent, the Director, NPFC, will publish a
notice of no adjustment to the limit of liability in the Federal
Register. If this occurs, the Director, NPFC, will recalculate the
cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U since the year in which
the limit of liability was most recently established or last adjusted
by statute or regulation, whichever is later, each year thereafter
until the cumulative percent change equals or exceeds the threshold
amount of 3 percent. Once the 3-percent threshold is reached, the
Director, NPFC, will increase the limit of liability by an amount equal
to the cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U.
    (c) Formula for calculating inflation adjustments. The Director,
NPFC, calculates adjustments to the limits of liability in Sec.
138.230 of this part for inflation using the following formula:

New limit of liability = Current limit of liability value + (Current
limit of liability value x percent change in the Annual CPI-U from the
year the limit of liability was established, or last adjusted by
statute or regulation, whichever is later, to the present year), then
rounded to the closest $100.

    (d) [Reserved].

    Dated: September 17, 2008.
Craig A. Bennett,
Director, National Pollution Funds Center, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E8-22444 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P