Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations therefore has no regulatory cost or benefit.
Alternative 2: Promulgate evidence of financial responsibility regulations for tank vessels greater than 100 gross tons but less than or equal to 300 gross tons statutory requirement.
Alternative 2 reflects the absolute minimum rulemaking effort to address the statutory requirement in Section 712
of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. However we did not choose this alternative because, there are other aspects of the Coast Guards evidence of financial responsibility program that the Coast Guard wants to address such as removing outdated regulatory text, providing updates that reflect current practices and taking into account technological improvements that will provide better clarity to the public as well as reduce confusion. This alternative has the least net benefits of all of the proposed alternatives. This alternative reflects the most costly aspect of the rulemaking and is included in all of the proposed alternatives because it is a statutory provision.
Alternative 3: Promulgate evidence of financial responsibility regulations for tank vessels greater than 100 gross tons but less than or equal to 300 gross tons statutory requirement and for deepwater ports discretionary requirement.
Alternative 3 adds promulgating evidence of financial responsibility regulations for deepwater ports to Alternative 2. The Coast Guard considered proposing financial responsibility regulations for deepwater ports as part of this rulemaking. The deepwater port industry is experiencing increased activity in the liquefied natural gas deepwater port industry sector, raising questions about how existing laws and policies regarding these facilities would apply. These issues do not impact vessel evidence of financial responsibility, however, and could create complexity and potentially delay the mandated regulation of tank vessels greater than 100 gross tons but less than or equal to 300 gross tons. In addition, currently only one liquefied natural gas deepwater port is in operation and it uses less than 100
gallons of oil, whereas other designs might pose a greater risk of oil spills.
Additional time is necessary to analyze the effects of liquefied natural gas regulation on the economy, maritime safety, and the environment. The only
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:06 Nov 30, 2021

Jkt 256001

other deepwater port in operation, an oil deepwater port called the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, is self-insured, and provides evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet its maximum liability under OPA 90 under grandfathered requirements of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974.
After evaluating this alternative, the Coast Guard decided not to develop deepwater port financial responsibility regulations at this time. Postponing evidence of financial responsibility regulations for deepwater ports will not impact maritime safety or the environment. Currently, there is no established market that provides and maintains evidence of financial responsibility for deepwater ports. If the market decides to pursue these ventures in the future, the costs and benefits will be analyzed accordingly as part of a future rulemaking.
Alternative 4 Preferred alternative Promulgate evidence of financial responsibility regulations for tank vessels greater than 100 gross tons but less than or equal to 300 gross tons statutory requirement; require COFR
Operators and guarantors to submit additional information to the Coast Guard; make conforming amendments reflect current practices discretionary requirement; and remove subpart D of 33 CFR part 153 D and 33 CFR part 135
from the CFR discretionary requirement.
Alternative 4 addresses the statutory requirement to require tank vessels greater than 100 gross tons but less than or equal to 300 gross tons to establish and maintain financial responsibility. It also provides necessary updates to the current financial responsibility regulations to reflect current practices that have evolved over the past two decades, taking into account technological improvements as well as changes in policy. Lastly, this alternative removes 33 CFR part 135 and subpart D of 33 CFR part 153, both of which regulate two defunct funds, the OCSLA Fund and the 311k Fund.
In addition to the regulatory costs and benefits associated with Alternative 2, this alternative adds two aspects with no cost: Conforming regulations to current practice and removing two defunct portions of the CFR, providing intangible benefits of eliminating confusion for the public, as well as ensuring that the regulations reflect how the Coast Guards financial responsibility program currently
PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

68131

operates. Additionally, a small amount of regulatory cost is associated with the requirement to require COFR Operators and guarantors to provide additional information to the Coast Guard.
Although the benefits of this alternative are qualitative, they will help to eliminate confusion and provide more clarity to the public while providing much needed information to the Coast Guard.
2. Regulatory Changes We are amending the vessel evidence of financial responsibility regulations at 33 CFR part 138, subpart A, to:
1. Require financial responsibility to now include all tank vessels greater than 100 gross tons but less than or equal to 300 gross tons.
2. Require additional information from the COFR Operator and guarantor.
The revisions include:
Reporting of gross tonnage measurement system used and submission of a copy of the tonnage certifying document, upon request;
Electronic submissions;
Reporting of reason for termination of guaranty by a guarantor, if known;
and Reporting vessel name change and increased reporting on location of vessel when there is a change in ownership on date of change.
3. Conform regulations to current practice. The revisions include:
How to apply vessel gross tonnages;
Removal of requirement to pay fees before issuance of a COFR;
Moving surety bond method to other methods for establishing and maintaining evidence of financial responsibility;
Clarification on continuation of guarantors liability and requirement to provide coverage for 30 days after cancellation of guaranty; and Process for establishing and maintaining acceptability of COFR
insurance guarantors.
In addition, for the reasons discussed above, we are removing 33 CFR part 135
and subpart D of 33 CFR part 153 which concern management of two defunct pollution funds.
Table 2 shows whether a category of regulatory amendments have a regulatory cost, regulatory benefit, or both. Those amendments that have a regulatory cost or benefit are discussed in detail following the table.

E:FRFM01DER1.SGM

01DER1