[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25379-25381]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08667]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0633; FRL-10008-01--Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)
and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) portion of
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
emissions of particulate matter (PM) from nonmetallic mineral
processing, inactive mineral tailings and slag storage. We are
proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0633 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
       Local agency                 Rule #                   Rule title               revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD                      316....................  Nonmetallic Mineral                 11/07/18        11/19/18
                                                     Processing.
PDEQ                       Pima County Code (PCC)   Inactive Mineral Tailings       \1\ 01/22/19    \2\ 05/10/19
                            Section 17.16.125.       Impoundment and Slag
                                                     Storage Area within the Ajo
                                                     PM10 Planning Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 22, 2019, the EPA determined that the submittal for PCC
Section 17.16.125 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted PCC Section
17.16.125 on January 22, 2019 with an effective date of February 21,
2019.
    \2\ ADEQ submitted PCC Section 17.16.125 as part of a larger SIP
revision submittal titled ``SIP Revision: Ajo PM10
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (May 3, 2019)'' (herein
referred to as the ``Ajo PM10 SIP''). More specifically,
appendix C of the Ajo PM10 SIP includes PCC Section
17.16.125 and the related adoption materials. ADEQ submitted the Ajo
PM10 SIP electronically on May 10, 2019 under cover of a
transmittal letter dated May 8, 2019. Herein, EPA proposes action on
the PCC Section 17.16.125 portion of the Ajo PM10 SIP.
The EPA will be taking action on the rest of the Ajo PM10
Plan in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2019, the submittal for MCAQD Rule 316 was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There is no previous version of PCC Section 17.16.125 in the SIP.
    We approved an earlier version of MCAQD Rule 316 into the SIP on
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58553). The MCAQD adopted a revision to the
SIP-approved version on November 7, 2018, and ADEQ submitted it to us
on November 19, 2019.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?

    Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are harmful to
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control PM emissions. MCAQD Rule 316 controls
emissions of PM from commercial and/or industrial nonmetallic mineral
processing plants and related operations. MCAQD adopted amendments to
Rule 316 in 2018 to clarify the requirements and applicability of the
rule and to improve the overall effectiveness of the rule. The Pima
County Board of Supervisors adopted PCC Section 17.16.125 to provide
permanence and enforceability for control measures that have already
been implemented in the Ajo PM10 nonattainment area. Under
PCC Section 17.16.125, the owner or operator of the mineral tailings
impoundment and slag storage area in the Ajo PM10 planning
area is required to implement and

maintain PM10 control measures to meet visible emissions and
stabilization requirements to ensure continued PM emissions reductions.
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information
about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must implement reasonably available control
measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology
(RACT), in Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)) and Best Available Control
Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in
Serious PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA section
189(b)(1)(B)). The PDEQ regulates two PM10 nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate for the PM10 national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.303), one of which is the Ajo
PM10 planning area. A RACM and RACT evaluation is generally
performed in context of a broader attainment plan. The MCAQD regulates
the Maricopa County portion of a PM10 nonattainment area
(i.e., the Phoenix planning area) classified as Serious for the
PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303). A BACM and BACT evaluation is
generally performed in context of a broader attainment plan.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM or BACM, and SIP revisions.
More specifically, with respect to MCAQD Rule 316, we previously
determined that the rule implemented BACM for nonmetallic mineral
processing within the Phoenix planning area, and we find that the 2018
amendments to the rule relax no control requirements and generally
clarify and enhance the effectiveness of the rule. With respect to PCC
Section 17.16.125, we find that the rule provides a means to ensure the
permanence and enforceability of the fugitive dust controls that have
already been implemented in the Ajo PM10 planning area and
that have brought the area into attainment of the PM10
NAAQS. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve MCAQD Rule 316,\3\ as submitted on November 19, 2018, and PCC
Section 17.16.125, as submitted on May 10, 2019, because they fulfill
all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on
this proposal until June 1, 2020. If we take final action to approve
the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into
the federally enforceable SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Final approval of MCAQD Rule 316, as submitted on November
19, 2018, would replace the version of MCAQD Rule 316 that was
approved by the EPA at 74 FR 58553 (November 13, 2009) in the
Maricopa County portion of the applicable SIP for the State of
Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference PCC Section 17.16.125 and MCAQD Rule 316 described in Table 1
of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and

     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 17, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-08667 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


the document either adequate or inadequate. If the document is found
adequate, the current regulation requires

that ``the Captain of the Port returns-one copy to the [facility] owner
or operator marked `Examined by the Coast Guard' ''.\86\ The same
applies to MTR documentation. If the document is found to be adequate,
the current regulation requires that ``the COTP . . . return one copy
of the manual marked `Examined by the Coast Guard' ''.\87\ All these
copies are currently submitted and returned in printed format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 33 CFR 127.019(c).
    \87\ 33 CFR 154.300(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost Savings From the Option for the COTP to Return Electronic
Documents to Facility Operators if Those Documents Were Electronically
Submitted
    This proposed rulemaking would permit the COTP the option of
returning these documents to the facilities in either electronic or
printed format, depending on the format in which the document was
received. If a document was received from a facility in printed format,
then it would not be returned to the facility in electronic format. As
previously stated, Coast Guard SMEs estimate that 90 percent of LNG and
LHG documents would be received in electronic format, and 75 percent
for MTR. Thus, this is same the percentage that the COTP would return
to the facilities in electronic format.
    The cost savings the Coast Guard would experience from returning
electronic responses would be the shipping and handling costs saved by
not having to mail back the printed editions of the Operations Manuals
and Emergency Manuals and amendments. The Coast Guard, like the private
sector, would likely use a mailing service such as UPS or FedEx Ground
shipping. Since the same packages would be returned to the facilities,
the Coast Guard's mailing costs would likely be the same as the private
sector's. For a 0.5-inch manual, this is estimated to total $9.56, and
for a 5-page amendment, this is estimated to total $8.88.
    Because labor costs differ between the Coast Guard and the private
sector, labor-handling costs do also. The type of Coast Guard personnel
expected to package documents to return to facilities would be either
E-4s or E-5s. According to the latest available Commandant Instruction,
the fully loaded hourly rate for an E-4 is $45.00 and for an E-5
$54.00.\88\ We assume that it takes the same amount of time to pack and
prepare a 0.5-inch and a 5-page amendment for shipping as it takes the
private sector: 5 minutes, rounded to the closest whole minute, for a
0.5-inch manual and 4 minutes for a 5-page amendment.89 90
We estimate labor costs at $3.60 for an E-4 and $4.32 for an E-5 to
mail a 0.5-inch manual.91 92 We estimate that it costs $3.15
for an E-4 and $3.78 for an E-5 to mail a 5-page
amendment.93 94 We take an average of the E-4 and E-5 rates,
thus deriving an estimated labor cost of $3.96 per 0.5-inch amendment
and $3.47 per 5-page amendment.\95\ Thus, the total cost to mail a 0.5-
inch manual and $12.35 to mail a 5-page amendment is $13.52. These
costs are summarized in table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Commandant Instruction 7310.1U, dated 27 February 2020,
page 2 under the ``Hourly Standard Rates for Personnel'' section.
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Mar/04/2002258826/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1U.PDF
    \89\ 5/60 = 0.08 hours.
    \90\ 4/60 = 0.07 hours.
    \91\ .08 x $45= $3.60.
    \92\ .08 x $54 = $4.32.
    \93\ .07 x $45 = $3.15.
    \94\ .07 x $54 = $3.78.
    \95\ Both of these figures are rounded to the nearest whole
cent.

                                Table 21--Coast Guard Shipping and Handling Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Shipping and Handling Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Handling
                                                                  Mailing  costs   (labor costs)       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuals.........................................................           $9.56           $3.96          $13.52
Amendments......................................................            8.88            3.47           12.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the documents that have been found adequate, there
is the issue of those documents that are deemed inadequate by the COTP.
The current regulations require the COTP to notify the facility in
writing.96 97 This notification usually comes in the form of
a marked-up copy of the document, showing what needs to be corrected.
This proposed rule would provide the COTP the option to respond
electronically or in print to either electronic or printed copies from
the facility operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 33 CFR 154.320(a)(1) states: ``The COTP will notify the
facility operator [of an MTR facility] in writing of any
inadequacies''.
    \97\ 33 CFR 127.019(d) states: ``If the COTP finds that the
Operations Manual or the Emergency Manual does not meet this part,
the Captain of the Port will return the manual with an explanation
of why it does not meet this part [to the LNG and LHG facility].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the cost savings for the Coast Guard would be produced
from the reduced number of printed Operations Manuals and Emergency
Manuals and amendments returned to LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities. These
savings can be broken out into the labor costs and the shipping costs.
Table 22 shows the annual cost saving calculations for the Coast Guard.

                  Table 22--Coast Guard Annual Cost Savings from Shipping and Handling Foregone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Expected  rate
                                                  Population  of  of  electronic   Shipping  and
         Cost savings to the coast guard          documents  per     documents       handling      Annual  cost
                                                      year *        production         costs          savings
                                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG Manuals.....................................              18              90          $13.52         $219.02
LNG Amendments..................................              42              90           12.35          466.83
MTR Manuals.....................................             261              75           13.52        2,646.54
MTR Amendments..................................             442              75           12.35        4,094.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See tables 11 and 12.

    The summary of these calculations for 10 years is in Table 23.

Table 23--Coast Guard Costs Savings on a Nominal Basis and Discounted at
                                   7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coast guard cost savings     Nominal  terms    7%  Discounted rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.........................       $7,426.42                $6,940.58
Year 2.........................        7,426.42                 6,486.52
Year 3.........................        7,426.42                 6,062.17
Year 4.........................        7,426.42                 5,665.58
Year 5.........................        7,426.42                 5,294.93
Year 6.........................        7,426.42                 4,948.54
Year 7.........................        7,426.42                 4,624.80
Year 8.........................        7,426.42                 4,322.24
Year 9.........................        7,426.42                 4,039.48
Year 10........................        7,426.42                 3,775.21
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................       74,264.19                52,160.06
                                ----------------------------------------
        Annualized.............  ..............                 7,426.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Cost Savings
    We show the total aggregate cost savings for both the private
sector and government, in nominal and discounted terms, in table 24.

   Table 24--Total Costs Savings (Private Sector Plus Government) on a
                            Nominal Basis and
                            Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total private sector + coast
       guard cost savings         Nominal terms     7% Discounted rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.........................      $43,733.68               $40,872.60
Year 2.........................       43,733.68                38,198.69
Year 3.........................       43,733.68                35,699.71
Year 4.........................       43,733.68                33,364.22
Year 5.........................       43,733.68                31,181.51
Year 6.........................       43,733.68                29,141.60
Year 7.........................       43,733.68                27,235.14
Year 8.........................       43,733.68                25,453.40
Year 9.........................       43,733.68                23,788.23
Year 10........................       43,733.68                22,231.99
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................      437,336.83               307,167.09
                                ----------------------------------------
        Annualized.............  ..............                43,733.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using a perpetual period of analysis, we estimate the total
annualized cost savings to both industry and the Coast Guard of the
proposed rulemaking to be $29,406 in 2016 dollars, using a 7-percent
discount rate and discounted back to 2016.\98\ The anticipated year of
the rule's implementation is 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Rounded to the nearest whole dollar. We assume that the
regulation will be implemented in 2021, hence deflate the 2016
dollar terms to that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Small Entities
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) and
Executive Order 13272 (Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking) requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess
their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and certifies that
a rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    Under the RFA, 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 proposes to allow MTR facilities, and LNG and LHG
facilities to submit their Operations Manuals, Emergency Manuals, and
amendments in electronic format. These facilities will experience a
cost savings. Therefore, we estimate that this proposed rule would
provide cost savings to 703 MTR facilities, and 60 LNG and LHG
facilities.
    This proposed rulemaking would reduce the time and cost burden for
regulated LNG, LHG, and MTR facilities to submit Operations Manuals and
Emergency Manuals and amendments for the purposes of 33 CFR parts 127,
154 and 156. The proposed rulemaking would enable these facilities to
submit the required documentation electronically. This would enable
facilities to save time associated with mailing and processing printed
manuals. In addition, it would permit facilities to place electronic
copies of their manuals and amendments at their marine transfer areas.
This would result in a savings to facilities that choose this route
because they would not have to

print manuals and amendments and place them physically at those
locations.
    Section 70011 of Title 46 of the U.S.C. authorizes the Secretary of
Homeland Security to establish procedures and measures for handling
dangerous substances, including oil and hazardous material, to prevent
damage to any structure on or in the navigable waters of the United
States. Additionally, the FWPCA, as amended and codified in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5), authorizes the President to establish procedures to prevent
discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels, onshore
facilitates, and offshore facilities. The FWPCA functions in 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5) have been delegated from the President to the Secretary of
DHS by Executive Order 12777 Sec. 2(d)(2), as amended by Executive
Order 13286. The authorities in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5) and 46 U.S.C.
70011 have been delegated to the Coast Guard under section II,
paragraphs 70 and 73, of DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. This serves as the
legal basis of the proposed rulemaking. We have searched for relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap and conflict with the
proposed rule but have found none.
    We examined the LNG and LHG and MTR facility populations
separately, to provide a detailed analysis. With respect to the LNG and
LHG population, as stated previously, we estimate that 54 facilities a
year would be impacted by the proposed regulation, or 45 percent of the
121 total number of LNG and LHG facilities.99 100 A search
of the MISLE database revealed a total of 85 unique owners for these
121 LNG and LHG facilities.\101\ Of these unique owners, 15 were found
to be small businesses, as defined by the SBA ``Table of Small Size
Standards''.\102\ We were unable to find employee or revenue
information for 16 entities. Entities for which data was not available
were assumed to be small entities. Assuming that the proportion of
owners is directly related to the number of impacted owners, 45 percent
of the 85 unique owners yielded a total of 38 unique owners who would
be affected by the proposed rule.\103\ We estimate total nominal cost
savings per year for LNG and LHG facilities to be $3,331 per year, as
shown in Table 18.\104\ This totals $86.66 per owner per year.\105\
There were no small LNG and LHG facilities, for which gross sales data
existed, for which costs savings exceeded 1 percent of gross revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ The discussion under the ``affected population'' section of
this NPRM should be referenced.
    \100\ 54/121 = 45%.
    \101\ The search of the MISLE database was conducted mid-
December 2020.
    \102\ As of the latest available SBA ``Table of Size Standards''
at the time this analysis was performed. That table was effective as
of Aug. 19, 2019 and is available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
    \103\ Rounded to nearest whole number. 85 x 45% = 38.25 (rounded
to 38).
    \104\ Rounded to closest whole dollar.
    \105\ $3,331/38 = $86.66 per impacted owner per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the MTR population, as stated previously, we
estimate that 527 facilities would be impacted per year.\106\ As we
found the total number of MTR facilities to be 2,497, the proportion of
impacted facilities is 21 percent.\107\ A search of the MISLE database
found 1,390 unique owners of all MTR facilities.\108\ We used Cochran's
Formula to reduce 1,390 to a representative sample.\109\ Applying this
formula, while assuming a 95-percent confidence interval, yields a
sample size of 302. We used this sample size on which to base our small
business analysis.\110\ Of the 302 facilities, 223 were estimated to be
small. Of the 223 facilities, 139 were small (in terms of either gross
sales or number of employees) according to the definition provided by
the SBA. With respect to the remaining 84 facilities, no sales or
employee data was available, so we assumed that these facilities were
also small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The discussion under the ``affected population'' section
of this regulatory analysis should be referenced.
    \107\ Rounded to closest whole percentage point (527/2,497 =
21.1%). This assumes that this ratio, based on historical MISLE data
over the past 10 years, remains constant over the future.
    \108\ The search of the MISLE database was conducted in Mid-Dec.
2020.
    \109\ Cochran's formula is defined as: n= (Z\2\xpxq)/e\2\ where
n is the sample size number that matches a particular precision
(i.e. margin of error) and confidence level. Z is the z-value (1.96
in our case, a number that matches 2 standard deviations), p is the
estimated proportion of the population which has the attribute in
question (0.5 in our case, as we are looking numbers around a
center), q = 1-p and e is the estimated margin of error (0.05, as we
are assuming a 95-percent confidence level). The use of this
equation yields a corresponding sample size of 385. However, as the
population is relatively small (in terms of statistical analysis)
1,390, we need to use a slight modification of this formula. That
modification is as follows: n = (n0)/(1+ (n0-1)/N). n0 is the sample
size from our first calculation (385) and N is the sample size
(1,390). Thus, we obtain: 385/(1 + (385-1)/1390)) = 302.
    \110\ We picked the 302, from the 1,390, by assigning the 1,390
a randomly selected number between 0 and 1 using the random number
generator in Excel and then picking the first 302 facilities, from
highest to lowest, based on the number the random number generator
created for each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated number of total impacted unique MTR owners is
292.\111\ We estimate the total cost savings, as shown in table 19, to
be $32,976 per year for all MTR facilities per year.\112\ Hence, we
estimate that the projected cost savings per impacted facility would be
$112.93 per year.\113\ Assuming that the proportion of small facilities
among the 292 total impacted facilities reflects the ratio of small in
the sample derived by the application of Cochran's formula (74
percent), 216 small facilities are estimated to
exist.114 115 For the 139 small MTR facilities for which
gross sales data existed, there were no facilities for which costs
savings exceeded 1 percent of gross revenue. Based on the information
provided above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 1,390 x 21% = 291.9.
    \112\ Figure rounded to closest whole dollar.
    \113\ $32,976/292 = $112.93.
    \114\ 223/302 = 73.8%.
    \115\ 292 x 74% = 216.08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
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
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the U.S. Coast Guard to consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the
1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection
of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    This action contains the proposed amendments to the existing
information collection requirements previously approved OMB collections
of information. The Coast Guard will submit these proposed information
collection amendments to OMB for its review.
    Hence, the COI amendments under this proposed rule falls under the
same collection of information already required for waterfront
facilities handling LNG and LHG described in OMB Control Number 1625-
0049, and facilities transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk
described in OMB Control Number 1625-0093. This proposed rule does not
change the content of responses, nor the estimated burden of each
response, but because it changes the estimated burden of many of the
responses required in those COIs, it proposes to decrease the total
annual burden for both of these collections of information.
    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: Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG).
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0049.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: LNG and LHGs present a
risk to the public when transferred at waterfront facilities. Title 33
CFR part 127 prescribes safety standards for the design, construction,
equipment, operations, maintenance, personnel training, and fire
protection at waterfront facilities handling LNG or LHG. The facility
operators must submit Operational Manuals and Emergency Manuals and
amendments to the Coast Guard.
    Need for Information: The information in an Operations Manual is
used by the Coast Guard to ensure the facility follows proper and safe
procedures for handling LNG and LHG and to ensure facility personnel
are trained and follow proper and safe procedures for transfer
operations. The Emergency Manual is used by the Coast Guard to ensure
the facility follows proper procedures in the event of an emergency
during transfer operations. These procedures include actions in the
event of a release, fire, or other event that requires an emergency
shutdown, first aid, or emergency mooring or unmooring of a vessel.
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals are updated periodically by
amendments to ensure they are kept current to reflect changes in
procedures, equipment, personnel, and telephone number listings.
    Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information to
monitor compliance with the rule.
    Description of the Respondents: Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG
and LHG.
    Number of Respondents: This proposed rule would not have any impact
on the number of respondents. Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE
database, there are currently 121 LNG and LHG facilities operating in
the United States and its territories.\116\ The proposed rule would
reduce the number of hours spent assembling manuals and amendments,
submitting them to the COTP, updating numerous copies of each manual
that is amended, and ensuring that the most recent version of the
manual with all amendments is available to the PIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ In the most current COI, the number of LNG and LNG
facilities was 108. The current figure of 121 reflects an increase
in this population; it is not due to a change in the proposed
rulemaking. The relevant COI is 1625-0049. This can be found in
Regulations.Gov (specifically under https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year for this
proposed rule would vary by participating facilities. The Coast Guard
anticipates that each new participant will submit an Operations Manual
and Emergency Manual once when the new facility becomes operational.
The operator will submit updates, in the form of amendments, to the
manual whenever there is a significant change.
    The number of responses has increased since the most recently
approved COI and this proposed rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking will
lead to an increase in the number of annual responses.
    The proposed rulemaking does not increase the number of annual
responses. The number of responses since the last COI, however, do
increase because the population size since that time has increased. The
most recently approved COI estimates 3,356 annual responses for all LNG
and LHG facilities.\117\ Under the current proposed rulemaking, the
annual responses are estimated to be 3,502.\118\ This difference is due
to a change in the populations as opposed to other impacts of the
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Annual responses are defined as not only the number of
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments but also
other documentation such as letters of intent and declarations of
intent. The full list of documents that constitute responses can be
found in the COI (1625-0049).
    \118\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden of Response: The burden of response would decrease due to
the fact that facility operators would no longer need to print the
manuals that will be submitted to the Coast Guard, mail them to the
COTP, and place them at the marine transfer areas of the facilities
(for those manuals and amendments that will be kept at marine transfer
areas in electronic format).
    In the latest available COI, using the new LNG and LHG population
of 121 instead of 108, along with the per-response burden hours in that
COI, the total burden hours for both LNG and LHG facilities, per year,
is 6,768. The hours per response for the development of an Operations
or Emergency Manual is 150 hours, and the hours per response for
Operations Manual or Emergency Manual amendments is 2 hours.\119\ The
proposed rulemaking is estimated to reduce the burden hours for
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals and amendments for facility
operators submitting their documents to the COTP and storing their
documentation at their marine transfer areas in electronic format. This
total time saved time is estimated at 60 hours per year. Thus, the
Coast Guard estimates that 60 burden hours would be eliminated per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The relevant COI is 1625-0049. The 150- and 2-hour figures
can be seen in Regulations.Gov (specifically under https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2019-0353), in the supporting
document ``1625-0049_SS_r0_2019_calcs-sheet_App-A-to-C'', pages 2-3.
In that document, it can be seen that the total hours per response,
for both LNG and LHG facilities, is 150 hours for development of
Operations Manuals and Emergency Manual Amendments and 2 hours for
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The proposed rule would decrease
the total

burden by 60 hours, from 6,768 hours to 6,708.
    Title: Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Operations Manual
regulations in 33 CFR 154.300 through 154.325 establish procedures for
facilities that transfer oil or hazardous materials, in bulk, to or
from a vessel with a capacity of 39.75 cubic meters (250 barrels) or
more. The facility operator must submit Operations Manuals and
associated amendments to the Coast Guard.
    Need for Information: The Coast Guard uses the information in an
Operations Manual to ensure that facility personnel follow proper and
safe procedures for transferring oil or hazardous materials and to
ensure facility personnel follow proper and safe procedures for dealing
with any spills that occur during a transfer. Operations Manuals are
updated periodically by amendments to ensure they are kept current to
reflect changes in procedures, equipment, personnel, and telephone
number listings.
    Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information to
monitor compliance with the rule.
    Description of the Respondents: Facilities transferring oil or
hazardous materials in bulk.
    Number of Respondents: This proposed rule would not have any impact
on the number of respondents. Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE
database, there are currently 2,497 oil and hazardous material
facilities operating in the United States and its territories. The
electronic submission opportunity in this proposed rule would reduce
the number of hours spent printing the manuals and amendments, mailing
them to the Coast Guard, updating numerous copies of each manual
following amendment, and ensuring the most recent printed version of
the manual, with all amendments, is available to the person in charge
of transfer operations.
    Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year for this
proposed rule would vary by participating facilities. The Coast Guard
anticipates that each new participant will submit an Operations Manual
once when the new facility becomes operational. The operator will
submit updates to the Manual whenever there is a significant change.
Based on historical information, the Coast Guard expects facilities to
submit 261 new Operations Manuals and 442 Operations Manual amendments
per year. The number of Letters of Intent Submission are 261,
equivalent to the number of Operations Manuals. The current COI assumes
that the number of letters of intent equals the number of Operations
Manual submissions. These figures are derived from the MISLE database.
Hence, the total number of responses are 964 per year.
    Burden of Response: The proposed rulemaking gives regulated
facilities the option of submitting Operations Manuals and associated
amendments to the Coast Guard, at their discretion, in either print or
electronic format. For those facilities submitting documentation in
electronic format, the burden of response would decrease due to
eliminating the need to print and mail these manuals. For facility
operators placing electronic copies of their documents at their marine
transfer areas, costs associated with printing copies and labor time
related to placing them there will be saved.
    According to the latest COI, 115 hours are required to prepare an
Operations Manual; 16 hours are required to prepare an Operations
Manual amendment; and 2 hours are required to submit a Letter of
Intent.\120\ Assuming that there are 261 Operations Manual submissions,
442 Operations Manual amendments submissions, and 261 Letters of
Intent, the total annual burden hours associated with the assumptions
in that COI are 37,609.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.
    \121\ The current COI states that the Letters of Intent
submissions equal the number of Operation Manual submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rulemaking would reduce the burden hours for
facilities because it will permit them to submit their documentation in
electronic format and permit them to store their documents at their
marine transfer areas in electronic format. The estimated burden hours
reduced as a result is 528 hours per year.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The proposed rule would decrease
the total burden hours by 528, from 37,609 hours to 37,081 per year.
    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed revisions to the existing
collection of information to help us determine, among other things--
     How useful the information is;
     Whether the information can help us perform our functions
better;
     How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of
the information;
     Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
     How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
     How valid our methods are for determining the burden of
collection; and
     How we can minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them to both the OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.
E. Federalism
    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this 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 amends the Operations Manual and Emergency
Manual submission procedures and COTP approval process for facilities
that transfer LNG, LHG, oil, or hazardous material to or from a vessel
in bulk. These proposed changes involve procedural requirements for the
Coast Guard's own approval process, safety risk analysis, and appeal
process for a facility that transfers LNG, LHG, oil, or hazardous
material in bulk. The changes proposed in this NPRM do not conflict
with State interests. For individual States, or their political
subdivisions, any requirements for facilities to submit their
Operations or Emergency Manuals to them for review or approval would be
unaffected by this proposed rule.
    Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(1), Congress has expressly
authorized the Coast Guard to establish ``procedures, measures and
standards for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage and
movement on a structure of explosives or other dangerous articles and
substances, including oil or hazardous material.'' The Coast Guard
affirmatively preempts any State rules related to these procedures,
measures, and standards (See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109-
110 (2000)).

Therefore, because the States may not regulate within these categories,
this proposed rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    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
proposed rule would have implications for federalism under Executive
Order 13132, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT 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 State, local, or tribal 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule 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
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.
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 (for example,
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.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.
    This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under paragraphs
A3 (part d) and L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. Paragraph A3 (part d) pertains to the
promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the
development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices,
procedures that interpret or amend an existing regulation without
changing its environmental effect, and paragraph L54 pertains to
regulations which are editorial or procedural. This proposed rule
involves allowing facilities that transfer oil, hazardous materials,
LNG, or LHG in bulk to submit and maintain the facility Operations
Manuals and Emergency Manuals electronically or in print, and would
amend the COTP examination procedures for those documents, thus
enabling electronic communication between the facility operators and
the Coast Guard, which would reduce the time and cost associated with
mailing printed manuals. This action is consistent with the Coast
Guard's port and waterway security and marine safety missions. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 127

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

33 CFR Part 154

    Alaska, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 156

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR parts 127, 154, and 156 as follows:

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

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  127.019 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e);

0
c. Add new paragraph (c); and
0
d. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  127.019  Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Procedures for
examination.

    (a) The owner or operator of an active facility must submit an
Operations Manual and Emergency Manual in printed or electronic format
to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
    (b) At least 30 days before transferring LHG or LNG, the owner or
operator of a new or an inactive facility must submit an Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual in printed or electronic format to the
Captain of the Port of the zone in which the facility is located,
unless the manuals have been examined and there have been no changes
since that examination.
    (c) Operations Manuals and Emergency Manuals submitted after
[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] must include a
date, revision date or other identifying information generated by the
facility.
    (d) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual meets Sec.
127.305 or Sec.  127.1305 and that the Emergency Manual meets Sec.
127.307 or Sec.  127.1307, the COTP will provide notice to the facility
stating each manual has been examined by the Coast Guard. This notice
will include the revision date of the manual or other identifying
information generated by the facility.
    (e) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual or the Emergency
Manual does not meet this part, the COTP will notify the facility with
an explanation of why it does not meet this part.
0
3. In Sec.  127.309, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:

Sec.  127.309  Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.

    The operator must ensure that--
    (a) LNG transfer operations are not conducted unless the person in
charge of transfer for the waterfront facility handling LNG has in the
marine transfer area a readily available printed or electronic copy of
the most recently examined Operations Manual and Emergency Manual;
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  127.1309, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:

Sec.  127.1309  Operations Manual and Emergency Manual: Use.

    The operator must ensure that--
    (a) LHG transfer operations are not conducted unless the person in
charge of transfer for the waterfront facility handling LHG has a
printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined Operations
Manual and Emergency Manual readily available in the marine transfer
area;
* * * * *

PART 154--FACILITIES TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN BULK

0
5. The authority citation for part 154 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5), (j)(6), and (m)(2);
46 U.S.C. 70011, 70034; sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart F is also issued
under 33 U.S.C. 2735. Vapor control recovery provisions of Subpart P
are also issued under 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2).

0
6. Amend Sec.  154.300 as follows:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a) and add paragraph
(a)(4);
0
b. In paragraphs (b) and (c), remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must''; and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  154.300  Operations manual: General.

    (a) The facility operator of each facility to which this part
applies must submit to the COTP of the zone(s) in which the facility
operates, with the letter of intent, an Operations Manual in printed or
electronic format that:
* * * * *
    (4) After [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE],
includes a date, revision date, or other identifying information
generated by the facility.
* * * * *
    (d) In determining whether the manual meets the requirements of
this part and part 156 of this chapter, the COTP will consider the
products transferred and the size, complexity, and capability of the
facility.
    (e) If the manual meets the requirements of this part and part 156
of this chapter, the COTP will provide notice to the facility stating
the manual has been examined by the Coast Guard as described in Sec.
154.325. The notice will include the date, revision date of the manual,
or other identifying information generated by the facility.
    (f) The facility operator must ensure printed or electronic copies
of the most recently examined Operations Manual, including any
translations required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, are readily
available for each facility person in charge while conducting a
transfer operation.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  154.320 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (2), (c) introductory text, and
(c)(1) and (2);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (c)(3) and (4); and
0
c. Add paragraph (e).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  154.320  Operations manual: Amendment.

    (a) Using the following procedures, the COTP may require the
facility operator to amend the operations manual if the COTP finds that
the operations manual does not meet the requirements in this
subchapter:
    (1) The COTP will notify the facility operator in writing of any
inadequacies in the Operations Manual. The facility operator may submit
information, views, and arguments regarding the inadequacies
identified, and proposals for amending the Manual, in print or
electronically, within 45 days from the date of the COTP notice. After
considering all relevant material presented, the COTP will notify the
facility operator of any amendment required or adopted, or the COTP
will rescind the notice. The amendment becomes effective 60 days after
the facility operator receives the notice, unless the facility operator
petitions the Commandant to review the COTP's notice, in which case its
effective date is delayed pending a decision by the Commandant.
Petitions to the Commandant must be submitted in writing via the COTP
who issued the requirement to amend the Operations Manual.
    (2) If the COTP finds that there is a condition requiring immediate
action to prevent the discharge or risk of discharge of oil or
hazardous material that makes the procedure in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section impractical or contrary to the public interest, the COTP may
issue an amendment effective on the date the facility operator receives
notice of it. In such a case, the COTP will include a brief statement
of the reasons for the findings in the notice. The owner or operator
may petition the Commandant to review the amendment, but the petition
does not delay the amendment.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Submitting any proposed amendment and reasons for the amendment
to the COTP in printed or electronic format not less than 30 days
before the requested effective date of the proposed amendment; or

    (2) If an immediate amendment is needed, requesting the COTP to
examine the amendment immediately.
    (c) The COTP will respond to proposed amendments submitted under
paragraph (b) of this section by:
    (1) Notifying the facility operator that the amendments have been
examined by the Coast Guard; or
    (2) Notifying the facility operator of any inadequacies in the
operations manual or proposed amendments, with an explanation of why
the manual or amendments do not meet the requirements of this
subchapter.
* * * * *
    (e) Amendments may be submitted as page replacements or as an
entire manual. When an entire manual is submitted, the facility
operator must highlight or otherwise annotate the changes that were
made since the last version examined by the Coast Guard. A revision
date or other identifying information generated by the facility must be
included on the page replacements or amended manual.
0
8. Amend Sec.  154.325 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (g) as paragraphs (a) through
(f); and
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (a) through (d).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  154.325  Operations manual: Procedures for examination.

    (a) Not less than 60 days prior to the first transfer operation,
the operator of a new facility must submit, with the letter of intent,
an Operations Manual in printed or electronic format to the COTP of the
zone(s) in which the facility is located.
    (b) After a facility is removed from caretaker status, not less
than 30 days prior to the first transfer operation, the operator of
that facility must submit an Operations Manual in printed or electronic
format to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located, unless
the manual has been previously examined and no changes have been made
since the examination.
    (c) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual meets the
requirements of this part and part 156 of this chapter, the COTP will
provide notice to the facility stating the manual has been examined by
the Coast Guard. The notice will include the date, revision date of the
manual, or other identifying information generated by the facility.
    (d) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual does not meet the
requirements of this part or part 156 of this subchapter, the COTP will
notify the facility with an explanation of why the manual does not meet
the requirements of this subchapter.
* * * * *

PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS

0
9. The authority citation for part 156 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a, 3715,
70011, 70034; E.O. 11735, 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
10. Revise Sec.  156.120(t)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  156.120  Requirements for transfer.

* * * * *
    (t) * * *
    (2) Has readily available in the marine transfer area a printed or
electronic copy of the most recently examined facility operations
manual or vessel transfer procedures, as appropriate; and
* * * * *

    Dated: November 9, 2020.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-25192 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P