Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations are in this subchapter O, which includes 33 CFR parts 151 through 159.
C. Part 156Oil and Hazardous Material Transfer Operations Section 156.120
Transfer
Requirements for
Part 156 contains regulations related to oil and hazardous material transfer operations. In accordance with other changes made by this rule, in paragraph 156.120t2, the PIC must have a copy of the most recently examined facility Operations Manual readily available in the marine transfer area. For the purpose of this section, readily available in the marine transfer area means that a printed or electronic copy of the manual is available for viewing within the operating station of the PIC.
The PIC is not expected to keep the manual in their possession while conducting routine rounds during the transfer operation.
D. Technical Revisions Within Part 127
and Part 154
As proposed in the NPRM, we replace uses of the word shall with must when specifying the actions facility operators are required to perform. This helps align the regulations with plain language guidelines. Additionally, where the COTP is required to respond to or notify a facility, we replace the COTP shall with the COTP will to state clearly what the COTP will do in certain cases. This helps clarify what the facility operators can expect from the COTP and aligns the regulations with plain language guidelines. These technical revisions do not change the requirements for facility operators or the Coast Guard.
V. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking.
A summary of the analysis based on these statutes and Executive orders follows.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review and 13563
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:21 Aug 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget OMB has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3f of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
A regulatory analysis RA follows. The first section of this RA covers the alternatives considered, the second covers the affected population, the third covers the costs, the fourth covers the cost savings components, and the fifth provides a summary of the costs savings.
As stated previously under our discussion of public comments, we received four comments. Three of these comments supported the implementation of electronic documentation in the proposed rulemaking as well as in other rulemakings. An anonymous fourth commenter stated that they would like to see all documents submitted electronically and kept in that form until approved by the Coast Guard, but kept in printed form after approval.2 In response to this, the final rule gives the facility operators, at their discretion, the flexibility to keep that documentation in either print or electronic form. We believe that the facility operators would best be suited to decide which format they would prefer, based on the particular circumstances of their specific facilities. Forcing facilities to use only printed documentation prevents facilities from realizing any cost savings from the use of digital documentation. Hence, in this final rule, we allow facility operators the choice.
There are four differences in this RA
from the RA in the NPRM that have a quantified monetary impact. The first two involve updated financial data. The NPRM used the most up-to-date wage data available when it was written and what were then current costs to mail documents. More up-to-date wage data are now available,3 and the costs of mailing documents has changed 2 The commenter wrote, I would recommend that all Manuals and others sic written material to be submitted electronically including if the written material needs to be amended until the final approval of the Manuals and/or other documents, which then could be printed for the required establishments. I also recommend keeping a printed version not electronic readily available and accessible for team members that are carrying out assignments.
3 For example, wage data for the NPRM was taken from the May 2019 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, while for the final rule the data were taken from the May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. The fully burdened wages of in-scope employees rose from $30.28 for LNG/LHG employees and $100.03 for MTR facility employees in the NPRM, to $32.19 and $106.82, respectively, in the final rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

43919

between the time the NPRM was written and this final rule. A detailed breakdown of mailing costs, labor handling costs associated with mailing those documents, and aggregated shipping and handling costs the combined cost of both can be found in table 9. That table shows mailing costs have changed in a mixed manner, with the cost associated with mailing some documents going up and others going down. The price of labor associated with mailing documents has increased across all document groups, and aggregated shipping and handling costs the combination of both have increased in four of the six document categories. In aggregate, private sector cost savings associated with shipping and handling, costs have increased from $14,530 in the NPRM to $15,323 in the final rule.4
The other two differences involve the handling of manuals and amendments that the COTP finds to be inadequate.
We now estimate that, under current regulations, when the COTP finds an Operations Manual or Emergency Manual or amendment to be inadequate, the facility operator sends two copies of the document back to the COTP instead of the one copy originally assumed by the NPRM.5 The final difference is that in this final rule we estimate that, under current regulations, the COTP sends a facility one stamped copy of an Operations Manual or Emergency Manual or amendment after it has been modified to remedy an inadequacy and been deemed acceptable by the COTP.
In the NPRM economic analysis, we incorrectly stated that no copies were sent back in such cases, when, in fact, the COTP does send back one copy.6 We discuss these four new in more detail in the cost savings section of this RA.
Other than these four modifications, there are no substantive changes to the requirements and calculations originally proposed in the NPRM. We made clarifying edits to the regulatory text, as noted in the Discussion of Comments and Changes from the Proposed Rule section of this preamble, which do not have any impact on the costs or benefits from what we proposed in the NPRM.
This rule provides administrative paperwork burden relief for operators of LNG/LHG and MTR facilities, as the use of electronic documentation as opposed 4 See table 2, specifically the aggregate of the rows savings from not having to mail manuals and amendments to the COTP by LNG/LHG facilities and MTR facilities.
5 This change, from one copy to two copies, was made due to new information provided by Coast Guard subject matter experts SMEs.
6 This change, from zero copies to one copy, was made due to new input from Coast Guard SMEs.

E:FRFM11AUR1.SGM

11AUR1