
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49205-49220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19314]



[[Page 49205]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 160

August 19, 2014

Part III





 Department of Homeland Security





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





Coast Guard





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





33 CFR Part 138





 Consumer Price Index Adjustments of Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Limits 
of Liability--Vessels, Deepwater Ports and Onshore Facilities; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 49206]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 138, Subpart B

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1006]
RIN 1625-AC14


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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to increase the limits of liability 
for vessels, deepwater ports, and onshore facilities, under the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (OPA 90), to reflect significant 
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). We also propose a 
simplified regulatory procedure for the Coast Guard to make future 
required periodic CPI increases to the OPA 90 limits of liability for 
vessels, deepwater ports, and onshore facilities. These regulatory 
inflation increases to the limits of liability are required by OPA 90, 
and are necessary to preserve the deterrent effect and ``polluter 
pays'' principle embodied in OPA 90. Finally, we propose language to 
clarify applicability of the OPA 90 vessel limits of liability to two 
categories of tank vessels, edible oil cargo tank vessels and tank 
vessels designated as oil spill response vessels. This clarification to 
the existing regulatory text is needed for consistency with OPA 90.

DATES: Comments and related material must be submitted on or before 
October 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. USCG-2013-
1006 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) 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.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Benjamin White, Coast Guard; telephone 703-872-6066, 
email Benjamin.H.White@uscg.mil. For information about viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826, toll free 1-800-
647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background and Regulatory History
    A. Creation of 33 CFR Part 138, Subpart B
    B. Prior Regulatory Inflation Adjustments to the OPA 90 Limits 
of Liability in 33 CFR Part 138, Subpart B
    C. Statutory and Regulatory History Respecting the OPA 90 Edible 
Oil Cargo Tank Vessel and Oil Spill Response Vessel Exceptions
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Regulatory Inflation Adjustments and Statutory Updates to the 
Limits of Liability for Vessels, Deepwater Ports and Onshore 
Facilities
    B. Clarifying Amendments Respecting Edible Oil Cargo Tank 
Vessels and Oil Spill Response Vessels
    C. Section-by-Section Discussion
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials using the instructions below. All 
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have 
provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2013-1006), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of 
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing 
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your 
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your 
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
and follow the instructions of that Web site. If you submit your 
comments by mail or hand 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 comments 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 and may change this proposed rule based on your 
comments.

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, and 
follow the instructions on that Web site. If you do not have access to 
the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket 
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of 
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 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 using one of the methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting 
would be beneficial. If we decide to hold a public meeting, we

[[Page 49207]]

will announce its time and place in a later notice in the Federal 
Register.

II. Abbreviations

Annual CPI-U The Annual ``Consumer Price Index--All Urban Consumers, 
Not Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. City Average, All Items, 1982-84=100''
CPI-1 Rule The Coast Guard's first rulemaking amending 33 CFR part 
138, subpart B, to adjust the OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels 
and deepwater ports for inflation as required by 33 U.S.C. 
2704(d)(4) and establishing the Coast Guard's procedure for future 
required inflation adjustments to the limits of liability (Docket 
No. USCG-2008-0007). See 73 FR 54997 (Sep. 24, 2008) [CPI-1 NPRM]; 
74 FR 31357 (July 1, 2009) [CPI-1 Interim Rule]; 75 FR 750 (January 
6, 2010) [CPI-1 Final Rule].
BLS U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COFR Certificate of Financial Responsibility
COFR Rule The Coast Guard rule at 33 CFR part 138, subpart A, 
implementing the OPA 90 requirement under 33 U.S.C. 2716 for vessel 
responsible parties to establish and maintain evidence of financial 
responsibility sufficient to meet their limits of liability as 
adjusted over time for inflation
CPI Consumer Price Index
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DPA Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501-1524)
DRPA 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
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
Fund The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund created by 26 U.S.C. 9509
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
NPFC National Pollution Funds Center
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget
OPA 90 The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2701, et 
seq.)
SBA U.S. Small Business Administration
Sec.  Section symbol
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose

    In general, under Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as 
amended (OPA 90) (33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.), the responsible parties for 
any vessel (other than a public vessel) \1\ or facility (including any 
deepwater port or onshore facility) from which oil is discharged, or 
which poses a substantial threat of discharge of oil, into or upon the 
navigable waters or the adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic 
zone of the United States, are strictly liable, jointly and severally, 
for the removal costs and damages that result from such incident (``OPA 
90 removal costs and damages''), as provided in 33 U.S.C. 2702. Under 
33 U.S.C. 2704, however, the responsible parties' OPA 90 liability with 
respect to any one incident is limited (with certain exceptions) to a 
specified dollar amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 33 U.S.C. 2701(29) and (37) (definitions of public 
vessel and vessel) and 33 U.S.C. 2702(c)(2) (public vessel 
exclusion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In instances when a limit of liability applies, the responsible 
parties may, but are not required to, incur direct removal costs or 
reimburse third-party claims for OPA 90 removal costs and damages in 
excess of the applicable limit of liability. The responsible parties 
may, moreover, seek reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
Fund (Fund) of the OPA 90 removal costs and damages they incur in 
excess of the applicable limit of liability.\2\ This Fund is managed by 
the Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 33 U.S.C. 2708. A more comprehensive description of the 
Fund can be found in the Coast Guard's May 12, 2005, ``Report on 
Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990'', which is 
available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To prevent the real value of the OPA 90 limits of liability from 
depreciating over time as a result of inflation and preserve the 
``polluter pays'' principle embodied in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4) 
requires that the OPA 90 limits of liability be adjusted ``by 
regulations issued not later than 3 years after July 11, 2006, and not 
less than every 3 years thereafter,'' to reflect significant increases 
in the CPI. The President delegated this regulatory authority to the 
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating in 
respect to the limits of liability for vessels, deepwater ports subject 
to the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (DPA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501, et 
seq.) (``deepwater ports''), and the limit of liability for onshore 
facilities in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4).\3\ The Secretary of Homeland 
Security further delegated this authority to the Coast Guard in 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation 5110, Revision 01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, Sec. 4, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 
351, as amended by E.O. 13638 of March 15, 2013, Sec. 1 (78 FR 
17589, Thursday, March 21, 2013). See further discussion of the 
delegations below, under Background and Regulatory History.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) the Coast Guard 
proposes to carry out the statutorily-required inflation adjustments to 
the OPA 90 limits of liability. This NPRM also proposes to clarify 
applicability of the OPA 90 vessel limits of liability to edible oil 
cargo tank vessels and to tank vessels designated in their certificates 
of inspection as oil spill response vessels. This clarification to the 
existing regulatory text is needed for consistency with OPA 90 (33 
U.S.C. 2704(c)(4)).

IV. Background and Regulatory History

A. Creation of 33 CFR Part 138, Subpart B

    In 2008, the Coast Guard promulgated 33 CFR part 138, subpart B, 
setting forth the OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels and deepwater 
ports. (See Docket No. USCG-2005-21780.) This was done in anticipation 
of the Coast Guard implementing the periodic inflation adjustments to 
the limits of liability required by 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4), and to ensure 
that the applicable amounts of financial responsibility that must be 
demonstrated by vessel and deepwater port responsible parties as 
required by OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2716) and 33 CFR part 138, subpart A 
(COFR Rule), would always equal the applicable OPA 90 limit of 
liability as adjusted over time.

B. Prior Regulatory Inflation Adjustments to the OPA 90 Limits of 
Liability in 33 CFR Part 138, Subpart B

    The Coast Guard published an NPRM on September 24, 2008 (73 FR 
54997) (CPI-1 NPRM), and an interim rule with request for comments on 
July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31357) (CPI-1 Interim Rule), timely adjusting the 
vessel and deepwater port limits of liability at 33 CFR part 138, 
subpart B, to reflect significant increases in the CPI as required by 
OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)). The CPI-1 Interim Rule also established 
the Coast Guard's procedures and methodology for adjusting the OPA 90 
limits of liability for inflation over time. There were no adverse 
public comments on the CPI-1 Interim Rule. On January 6, 2010, the 
Coast Guard therefore published a final rule (CPI-1 Final Rule), 
adopting the CPI-1 Interim Rule amendments to 33 CFR part 138, subpart 
B, without change (75 FR 750).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All Federal Register notices, comments and other materials 
related to the CPI-1 Rule are available in the public docket for 
that rulemaking (Docket No. USCG-2008-0007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPI-1 Rule was the first set of inflation adjustments to the 
OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports. The CPI-1 
Rule, however, deferred adjusting the statutory limit of liability in 
33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4) for onshore facilities.

[[Page 49208]]

    As explained in the Federal Register notices for the CPI-1 Rule, 
the decision to defer adjusting the onshore facility limit of liability 
was made because E.O. 12777, Sec. 4, and its implementing re-
delegations vested the President's responsibility to adjust the OPA 90 
limits of liability (including the limit of liability for onshore 
facilities) in multiple agencies based on the agencies' traditional 
regulatory jurisdiction. Specifically, the delegations vested the 
President's limit of liability adjustment authorities in the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard for vessels, deepwater ports and marine 
transportation-related onshore facilities, in the Secretary of the 
Department of Transportation for non-marine transportation-related 
onshore facilities, in the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency for non-transportation-related onshore facilities, 
and in the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) for 
offshore facilities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ E.O. 12777, Sec. 4, also delegated various other liability 
limit adjustment and reporting authorities in 33 U.S.C. 2704.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This division of responsibilities complicated the CPI adjustment 
rulemaking requirement, particularly in respect to the three sub-
categories of onshore facilities. Interagency coordination was, 
therefore, needed to avoid inconsistent regulatory treatment.
    The decision to defer adjusting the onshore facility statutory 
limit of liability for inflation also permitted the Coast Guard to 
complete the required first set of inflation increases to the vessel 
and deepwater port limits of liability by the statutory deadline, and 
to establish the Coast Guard's CPI increase adjustment procedure at 
Sec.  138.240. There were no adverse public comments on the decision to 
defer adjusting the onshore facility limit of liability for inflation.
    On March 15, 2013, the President signed E.O. 13638, restating and 
simplifying the delegations in E.O. 12777, Sec. 4, and vesting the 
authority to make CPI adjustments to the onshore facility statutory 
limit of liability (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4)) in ``the Secretary of the 
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating''. (See E.O. 13638 of 
March 15, 2013, Sec. 1, amending E.O. 12777, Sec. 4, at 78 FR 17589, 
Thursday, March 21, 2013.) The restated delegations also require 
interagency coordination, but otherwise preserve the earlier 
delegations, including the delegated authorities to promulgate CPI 
adjustments to the limits of liability for vessels and deepwater 
ports.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Similarly, the authority to make CPI adjustments to the 
limit of liability for offshore facilities in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(3) 
remains with the Secretary of the Interior (see, e.g., 79 FR 10056, 
Monday, February 24, 2014; 79 FR 15275, Wednesday, March 19, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 10, 2013, the Secretary of Homeland Security re-delegated 
these authorities to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. (See DHS 
Delegation Number 5110, Revision 01.) This NPRM, therefore, proposes to 
adjust the vessel, deepwater port and onshore facility limits of 
liability to reflect significant increases in the CPI.

C. Statutory and Regulatory History Respecting the OPA 90 Edible Oil 
Cargo Tank Vessel and Oil Spill Response Vessel Exceptions

    Section 2(d) of the 1995 Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, Public 
Law 104-55, Nov. 20, 1995, 109 Stat. 546, amended OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 
2704(a)(1) and 33 U.S.C. 2716(a)), excepting tank vessels on which the 
only oil carried as cargo is an animal fat or vegetable oil (``edible 
oil tank vessels'') from the OPA 90 tank vessel limits of liability in 
33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1). The effect of the exception was to classify 
edible oil tank vessels as a matter of law to the ``any other vessel'' 
limit of liability category in OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(2)). In 
addition, edible oil tank vessels were, as of that date, subject to the 
lower OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2716) evidence of financial responsibility 
requirements applicable to the ``any other vessel'' category.
    The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, Public Law 105-383, 
title IV, section 406, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3429, further amended 
OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704), moving the edible oil tank vessel exception 
from 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1) to new 33 U.S.C. 2704(c)(4)(A), and adding an 
additional exception at 33 U.S.C. 2704(c)(4)(B) for tank vessels 
designated in their certificates of inspection as oil spill response 
vessels that are used solely for removal (``oil spill response 
vessels'').
    Oil spill response vessels are, therefore, also classified as a 
matter of law to the ``any other vessel'' category in 33 U.S.C. 
2704(a)(2), and subject to the resulting lower OPA 90 limit of 
liability and evidence of financial responsibility requirements.
    The special treatment accorded by OPA 90 to edible oil tank vessels 
and oil spill response vessels is not reflected in the current 
regulatory text of 33 CFR part 138. The Coast Guard, therefore, 
believes that a clarification to the regulatory text would reduce 
regulatory uncertainty.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Regulatory Inflation Adjustments and Statutory Updates to the Limits 
of Liability for Vessels, Deepwater Ports and Onshore Facilities

    In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4) and 33 CFR part 138, 
subpart B, we propose to increase the OPA 90 limits of liability for 
vessels and deepwater ports, set forth in Sec.  138.230(a) and (b), 
respectively, to reflect significant increases in the CPI since we last 
adjusted them for inflation. This would be the second set of inflation 
adjustments to the vessel and deepwater port limits of liability.
    We also propose increasing the OPA 90 limit of liability for 
onshore facilities in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4) for inflation. This would be 
the first inflation increase to the onshore facility limit of 
liability. The inflation-adjusted onshore facility limit of liability 
would be set forth in Sec.  138.230(c), which was expressly reserved by 
the CPI-1 Rule for that purpose.
1. What formula will be used to adjust the vessel, deepwater port and 
onshore facility limits of liability for inflation?
    The proposed limit of liability adjustments have been calculated 
using the inflation adjustment methodology established by the CPI-1 
Rule, set forth in Sec.  138.240.\7\ Specifically, 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 (i.e., the previous period), to the 
most recently published Annual CPI-U (i.e., the current period), using 
the formula in Sec.  138.240(b). The Director, NPFC, then calculates 
inflation adjustments to the limits of liability based on that 
cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U, as provided in Sec.  
138.240(d). Both the cumulative percent change formula and the limit of 
liability adjustment formula are based on the U.S. Department of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) escalation formula, which can be 
viewed at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi1998d.htm.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A detailed discussion of the Coast Guard's inflation 
adjustment methodology, and how it was developed, can be found in 
the preambles for the CPI-1 NPRM, 73 FR 54997, and the CPI-1 Interim 
Rule, 74 FR 31357.
    \8\ See also 33 CFR 138.240(a) (proposed 33 CFR 138.240(b)).

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

[[Page 49209]]

2. What current period values would be used for this set of inflation 
adjustments to the vessel, deepwater port and onshore facility limits 
of liability?
    To keep the limits of liability current, the inflation adjustment 
methodology established by the CPI-1 Rule, at Sec.  138.240, requires 
that we use the Annual CPI-U that has been most recently published by 
the BLS as the current period value. For purposes of this NPRM, the 
Coast Guard is therefore estimating the inflation adjusted limits of 
liability using the 2013 Annual CPI-U, published by BLS on January 16, 
2014, as the current period value.\9\ This is the Annual CPI-U that has 
been most recently published by the BLS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Table 24 on page 68 of the BLS document ``CPI Detailed 
Report--Data for March 2014'', which is available at the following 
link: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1403.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule stage of this rulemaking we will calculate the 
adjustments using the most recently published Annual CPI-U available at 
that time. Therefore, if the 2014 Annual CPI-U or another more recent 
Annual CPI-U is available for calculating the current period value when 
we are at the final rule stage of this rulemaking, the limit of 
liability values would change marginally from those proposed today.
3. What previous period values would be used for this set of inflation 
adjustments to the vessel, deepwater port and onshore facility limits 
of liability?
    Applying the inflation adjustment methodology at Sec.  138.240, we 
propose adjusting the vessel and deepwater port limits of liability to 
reflect significant increases in the Annual CPI-U since those limits 
were last adjusted for inflation by the CPI-1 Rule. We, therefore, 
propose using the 2008 Annual CPI-U, or 215.3, as the previous period 
value for this cycle of adjustments to the vessel and deepwater port 
limits of liability. This was the current period value we used for the 
CPI-1 Rule inflation adjustments to the vessel and deepwater port 
limits of liability.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2008 Annual CPI-U was used as the current period value 
for the CPI-1 inflation adjustments because of the time lag for BLS 
publication of the Annual CPI-U and the time it takes to promulgate 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For onshore facilities, we propose adjusting the OPA 90 statutory 
limit of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4) to reflect significant 
increases in the Annual CPI-U since 2006. This is the baseline year, or 
previous period, established by the CPI-1 Rule for calculating the 
first inflation adjustments to the statutory limits of liability in 33 
U.S.C. 2704(a), including the statutory limit of liability for onshore 
facilities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 74 FR at 31361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained during the CPI-1 Rule development,\12\ we proposed 
using 2006 as the previous period date for the first set of adjustments 
to the OPA 90 statutory limits of liability for all source categories. 
There were no adverse comments on that approach. We, therefore, 
established the 2006 Annual CPI-U value of 201.6 as the previous period 
value for adjusting the statutory limits of liability for all source 
categories delegated to the Coast Guard (i.e., vessels, deepwater ports 
and onshore facilities). We are, therefore, using that baseline for the 
adjustments we are proposing today to the statutory limit of liability 
for onshore facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 73 FR at 55000-55001; 74 FR at 31361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are, however, considering whether to use the 1990 Annual CPI-U 
previous period value to adjust the onshore facility limit of 
liability, and whether to also recalculate the CPI-1 Rule adjustment to 
the deepwater port general limit of liability using a 1990 previous 
period value.\13\ This issue is discussed further in subsection 5, 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We are not revisiting the CPI-1 Rule adjustments to the 
vessel and LOOP limits of liability. This is because the 2006 and 
1995 ``Previous Periods'' used, respectively, for those adjustments 
were based on the date the vessel statutory limits of liability were 
amended by DRPA and the date LOOP's facility-specific limit of 
liability was established by regulation under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 
2704(d)(2)(C)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What would the adjusted limits of liability be?
    Inserting the estimated percent changes in the Annual CPI-U into 
the adjustment formula would result in the following proposed new 
limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports (using the 2008 
Annual CPI-U previous period), and onshore facilities (using the 2006 
Annual CPI-U previous period), and rounding all limits of liability to 
the closest $100:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Previous limit of  Proposed new limit
         Source category               liability         of liability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   138.230 (a) Vessels
    (1) For a single-hull tank    the greater of      the greater of
     vessel greater than 3,000     $3,200 per gross    $3,500 per gross
     gross tons, other than a      ton or              ton or
     vessel excluded under 33      $23,496,000.        $25,422,700.
     U.S.C. 2704(c)(4) (i.e., an
     edible oil tank vessel or
     oil spill response vessel).
    (2) For a tank vessel         the greater of      the greater of
     greater than 3,000 gross      $2,000 per gross    $2,200 per gross
     tons, other than a vessel     ton or              ton or
     referred to in (a)(1) or a    $17,088,000.        $18,489,200.
     vessel excluded under 33
     U.S.C. 2704(c)(4) (i.e., an
     edible oil tank vessel or
     oil spill response vessel).
    (3) For a single-hull tank    the greater of      the greater of
     vessel less than or equal     $3,200 per gross    $3,500 per gross
     to 3,000 gross tons, other    ton or $6,408,000.  ton or
     than a vessel excluded                            $6,933,500.
     under 33 U.S.C. 2704(c)(4)
     (i.e., an edible oil tank
     vessel or oil spill
     response vessel).
    (4) For a tank vessel less    the greater of      the greater of
     than or equal to 3,000        $2,000 per gross    $2,200 per gross
     gross tons, other than a      ton or $4,272,000.  ton or
     vessel referred to in (3)                         $4,622,300.
     or a vessel excluded under
     33 U.S.C. 2704(c)(4) (i.e.,
     an edible oil tank vessel
     or oil spill response
     vessel).
    (5) For any other vessel,     the greater of      the greater of
     including any edible oil      $1,000 per gross    $1,100 per gross
     tank vessel and any oil       ton or $854,400.    ton or $924,500.
     spill response vessel.
Sec.   138.230 (b) Deepwater
 ports that are subject to the
 DPA
    (1) For a deepwater port      $373,800,000......  $404,451,600.
     that is subject to the DPA,
     other than the Louisiana
     Offshore Oil Port (LOOP).
    (2) For LOOP................  $87,606,000.......  $94,789,700.
Sec.   138.230 (c) Onshore        $350,000,000......  $404,600,000.
 facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 49210]]

    These values would change marginally if the 2014 Annual CPI-U or 
another more recent Annual CPI-U is used as the current period value 
when we are at the final rule stage of this rulemaking.
5. What would the estimated adjusted limit of liability for onshore 
facilities and deepwater ports generally be using a 1990 previous 
period?
    As mentioned in subsection 3, above, we are considering whether to 
use a 1990 previous period to adjust the onshore facility limit of 
liability, and whether to recalculate the CPI-1 Rule adjustment to the 
deepwater port general limit of liability using a 1990 previous period 
value. There are several reasons why we are considering doing this:
     First, in respect to the onshore facility limit of 
liability, Coast Guard data indicate that one onshore facility incident 
occurred following publication of the CPI-1 Rule--the 2010 Enbridge 
Pipeline spill to the Kalamazoo River--that may result in OPA 90 
removal costs and damages in excess of the onshore facility limit of 
liability.\14\ This recent experience warrants revisiting whether to 
use the 2006 previous period established by the CPI-1 Rule for the 
first inflation adjustment to the onshore facility statutory limit of 
liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On July 26, 2010, Enbridge Energy Partners LLP (Enbridge) 
reported a 30-inch pipeline rupture, near Marshall, Michigan. The 
resulting oil discharge, with volume estimates ranging from 843,000 
gallons to over a million gallons, entered Talmadge Creek and flowed 
into the Kalamazoo River, a Lake Michigan tributary. Heavy rains 
caused the river to overtop existing dams and carried oil 35 miles 
downstream on the Kalamazoo River. On July 28, 2010, the spill was 
contained approximately 80 river miles from Lake Michigan. This 
incident involved tar sand oil, which is particularly difficult and 
costly to clean up, and is the most expensive onshore facility spill 
in U.S. history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In addition, DOI is proposing a rule that would adjust the 
offshore facility limit of liability for inflation since OPA 90 was 
enacted, because there have not been intervening adjustments to that 
limit of liability (as compared to the vessel limits of liability, 
which have been adjusted both by statute and regulation), and because 
the damages in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill of national 
significance have far exceeded the offshore facility limit of 
liability.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 79 FR at 10059. The DOI otherwise plans to adopt a 
methodology for future adjustments similar to Sec.  138.240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Moreover, DRPA did not change or expressly address the 
onshore facility and deepwater port statutory limit of liability at 33 
U.S.C. 2704(a)(4).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4)) sets forth a common statutory 
limit of liability for onshore facilities and deepwater ports of 
$350,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, although onshore facility spills have not historically 
(with the one exception previously mentioned) exceeded the statutory 
limit of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4) and there currently are no 
deepwater ports in operation that are subject to the generally-
applicable limit of liability for deepwater ports, we believe that the 
Nation's recent experience with costly oil spills--although 
exceptional--warrants revisiting whether to use the 1990 Annual CPI-U 
as the previous period (instead of the 2006 previous period established 
by the CPI-1 Rule) for the first inflation adjustment to the statutory 
limit of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4), which applies to both 
onshore facilities and deepwater ports.
    Considering whether to use a different previous period for 
adjusting the onshore facility limit of liability is appropriate 
because the CPI-1 Rule did not adjust the onshore facility limit of 
liability for inflation. In addition, although deepwater ports may pose 
a very low risk of discharge as compared to other modes of oil 
transportation,\17\ reconsidering our use of the 2006 previous period 
for the CPI-1 Rule's deepwater port limit of liability adjustment is 
appropriate given our better understanding of the potential costs 
arising from oil spill incidents in offshore areas. We, therefore, 
invite the public to comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 1993 Deepwater Ports Study and Report to Congress under 
OPA 90 Section 1004(d)(2), analyzing the relative operational risks 
of the principal modes of crude oil transportation to the United 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we were to adopt a 1990 previous period, we would adjust the 
onshore facility and deepwater port statutory limit of liability in 33 
U.S.C. 2704(a)(4) using the 1990 Annual CPI-U value of 130.7 as the 
previous period. This would be instead of the 2006 Annual CPI-U 
previous period value of 201.6 and the 2008 Annual CPI-U previous 
period value of 215.3, used to calculate, respectively, the adjusted 
limit of liability values for onshore facilities and deepwater ports 
reflected in the regulatory text of this proposal.
    If, after considering any public comment on this NPRM, we decide to 
adjust the onshore facility and deepwater port generally-applicable 
limit of liability using the 1990 Annual CPI-U of 130.7 as the previous 
period value (i.e., instead of the 2006 Annual CPI-U value of 201.6 for 
onshore facilities, and the 2008 Annual CPI-U value of 215.3 for 
deepwater ports), the estimated percent change in the Annual CPI-U 
would be 78.2 percent. Inserting this estimated percent change in the 
Annual CPI-U into the adjustment formula would result in the following 
new limits of liability for onshore facilities and deepwater ports 
generally, after rounding the limits of liability to the closest $100:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Alternative new
                                          Statutory         limit of
           Source category             previous limit    liability (1990
                                        of liability    previous period)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   138.230(b)(1) For a deepwater      $350,000,000      $623,700,000
 port that is subject to the DPA,
 other than LOOP....................
Sec.   138.230(c) For onshore              350,000,000       623,700,000
 facilities.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These values would also change marginally if the 2014 Annual CPI-U 
or another more recent Annual CPI-U is used as the current period value 
when we are at the final rule stage of this rulemaking.
6. How does the Coast Guard propose to notify the public when the 
limits of liability for vessels, deepwater ports and onshore facilities 
are adjusted in the future for inflation or if the rule is amended to 
reflect amendments to the statute?
    We are proposing a simplified regulatory procedure at proposed new 
paragraph Sec.  138.240(a) for making future inflation updates to the 
OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels, deepwater ports and onshore 
facilities, in Sec.  138.230(a), (b), and (c) respectively. This 
simplified regulatory approach is based on a similar procedure used by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make routine cost 
adjustments to its fees (see 18 CFR 381.104(a) and (d)), and would help 
ensure regular, timely inflation

[[Page 49211]]

adjustments to the limits of liability as required by statute. The 
approach is also an appropriate and helpful efficiency measure given 
the mandatory and routine nature of the CPI adjustments.
    Under this proposed procedure, the Director, NPFC, would continue 
to determine future inflation adjustments to the limits of liability 
using the significance threshold and adjustment methodology in Sec.  
138.240, and the most current CPI values published by the BLS. The 
Director, NPFC, would, however, publish the inflation-adjusted limits 
of liability in the Federal Register as final rule amendments to Sec.  
138.230.\18\ The new inflation-adjusted limits of liability would 
appear in the next publication of the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As provided in Sec.  138.240(b) (Sec.  138.240(c) of the 
proposed rule), if the significance threshold were not met, the 
Director, NPFC, would publish a notice of no inflation adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the adjustment methodology was established by the CPI-1 
Rule, and the simplified procedure will be established by this 
rulemaking, publication of an NPRM would not be necessary for these 
future mandated inflation adjustments. The public would, however, be 
able to contact the person listed in the  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of the Federal Register notice amending the limits of 
liability. Therefore, in the event a member of the public identifies a 
mathematical or other technical error in the Coast Guard's application 
of the adjustment methodology and contacted the Coast Guard, the Coast 
Guard would publish a correction notice in the Federal Register.
    Under this simplified procedure, unless otherwise specified in the 
Federal Register, the new CPI-adjusted limits of liability would become 
effective on the 90th day after their publication in the Federal 
Register, including (as provided in the COFR Rule at Sec.  138.85) for 
purposes of the requirement for responsible parties to establish and 
maintain the applicable amounts of OPA 90 financial responsibility 
required for vessels and deepwater ports under 33 U.S.C. 2716 and Sec.  
138.80(f)(1). This will ensure efficient and timely implementation of 
this recurring, though routine, regulatory mandate.
    The Director would use this simplified regulatory procedure to 
update Sec.  138.230 to reflect statutory changes to the OPA 90 limits 
of liability. This will ensure that the limits of liability set forth 
in subpart B remain consistent with the statutory limits of liability 
if they are amended. Thereafter, as discussed in the CPI-1 Interim 
Rule, the new statutory limit of liability would be adjusted by 
regulation for inflation on the same inflation-adjustment cycle used 
for the other source categories. We note that, as a result, a limit of 
liability could change more frequently than once every three years, if 
it was changed by statute and then adjusted by regulation for inflation 
on the regular inflation-adjustment cycle.
    Because any new statutory limits of liability normally would 
supersede the prior regulatory limits of liability, any such new limits 
of liability would take effect for purposes of determining a 
responsible party's liability in the event of an incident on the date 
of enactment unless another effective date is specified in the amending 
law. As provided in Sec.  138.85 of the COFR Rule, however, the 
deadline for vessel and deepwater port responsible parties to establish 
evidence of financial responsibility in the new amounts would be the 
90th day after the effective date of the Coast Guard's final rule 
amending the CFR to reflect the new statutory limits of liability, 
unless another date is required by statute or specified in the Federal 
Register notice amending the regulation. (See, 33 U.S.C. 2716 and Sec.  
138.80(f)(1).)
    The simplified regulatory procedure described in proposed Sec.  
138.240(a) would not be used for other adjustments to the limits of 
liability, such as those authorized for classes and categories of 
onshore facilities under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(1) and for deepwater ports 
under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2).

B. Clarifying Amendments Respecting Edible Oil Cargo Tank Vessels and 
Oil Spill Response Vessels

    The Coast Guard is also proposing amendments to the vessel limits 
of liability in Sec.  138.230(a) for consistency with 33 U.S.C. 
2704(c)(4). (See Regulatory History discussion, above at IV.C.) 
Specifically, the proposed amendments to Sec.  138.230(a) would clarify 
that edible oil cargo tank vessels and oil spill response vessels 
(defined as proposed in Sec.  138.220(b)) are subject to the lower 
limits of liability set forth in current Sec.  138.230(a)(5) (proposed 
new Sec.  138.230(a)(2)) applicable to the ``any other vessel'' 
category under 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(2). The Coast Guard believes that 
adding clarifying language in the regulatory text will be helpful to 
the public.

C. Section-by-Section Discussion 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Coast Guard has included the complete regulatory text 
of 33 CFR part 138, subpart B in this NPRM to facilitate the 
public's understanding of the changes proposed to the current text 
of subpart B. The changes proposed to the existing regulatory text 
are, however, limited to those specifically mentioned in this 
section-by-section discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Heading. The heading for 33 CFR part 138 would be amended by adding 
the words ``ONSHORE FACILITY''.
    Authorities. We propose to update the authorities citations for 
part 138 to reflect the amendments to the delegations in E.O. 12777, 
Sec. 4, by E.O. 13638 of March 15, 2013, the resulting agency-level re-
delegations, and for editorial purposes.
    Sec.  138.200 Scope. We propose to amend Sec.  138.200 to add that 
subpart B sets forth the OPA 90 limit of liability for onshore 
facilities, in addition to the OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels 
and deepwater ports. We also propose to amend the scope section to 
specify that subpart B includes the procedure for making future 
inflation adjustments, by regulation, to the limits of liability for 
vessels, deepwater ports and onshore facilities, and for updating the 
limits when they are amended by statute. Finally, we propose to amend 
the scope section to specify that subpart B also cross-references DOI's 
proposed regulation at 30 CFR 553.702, setting forth the OPA 90 limit 
of liability applicable to offshore facilities, including offshore 
pipelines, as adjusted by DOI for inflation under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 
2704(d)(4)). This cross-reference is being added for the convenience of 
the public.
    Sec.  138.210 Applicability. We propose amending Sec.  138.210 to 
add that subpart B applies to you if you are a responsible party for an 
onshore facility, except (as is the case under the current rule for 
vessel and deepwater port responsible parties) to the extent your 
liability is unlimited under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(c)).
    Sec.  138.220 Definitions. We are proposing to amend Sec.  
138.220(a) of the definitions to cross-reference the OPA 90 definitions 
of facility, offshore facility and onshore facility. In addition, we 
propose to amend Sec.  138.220(b) by revising the definition of 
Director, NPFC, in Sec.  138.220(b), to conform to how that term is 
defined in other rules implemented by NPFC, and by adding definitions 
for current period and previous period as DOI has done in its proposal 
to amend the offshore facility limit of liability (79 FR at 10063). 
These definitions clarify the CPI escalation formula. Finally, we 
propose to add definitions for edible oil tank vessel and oil spill 
response vessel to mean,

[[Page 49212]]

respectively, a tank vessel referred to in OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 
2704(c)(4)(A) or (B)). These definitions are needed to clarify 
applicability of the limits of liability proposed in Sec.  138.230.
    Sec.  138.230 Limits of liability. We propose to increase the 
limits of liability for vessels and deepwater ports, including LOOP, 
from those set forth in current Sec.  138.230, to reflect significant 
increases in the CPI. We also propose to amend Sec.  138.230(a) to 
expressly provide and clarify that the ``other vessel'' limits of 
liability in Sec.  138.230(a)(2) apply to edible oil tank vessels and 
oil spill response vessels. Additionally, we propose adding an 
inflation-adjusted limit of liability for onshore facilities in Sec.  
138.230(c).
    As discussed in section V.A.2, the limits of liability proposed in 
Sec.  138.230 of this NPRM are estimates, calculated using the 2013 
Annual CPI-U as the current value. The updated limit of liability 
values that will appear in the final rule of this rulemaking will be 
calculated using the most recent Annual CPI-U available at the time of 
publication of the final rule, and may therefore be marginally 
different than the estimates in this NPRM.
    In addition, as discussed above in section V.A.3 and 5, the new 
limit of liability for deepwater ports and onshore facilities generally 
may differ from the amounts shown in Sec.  138.230(b)(1) and (c) of the 
proposed regulatory text if, after considering any public comments on 
this NPRM, we decide to calculate the CPI adjustments to the statutory 
limit of liability for these two source categories using the 1990 
Annual CPI-U value of 130.7 as the previous period. This would be 
instead of using the 2006 Annual CPI-U value of 201.6 to adjust the 
onshore facility limit of liability and the 2008 Annual CPI-U value of 
215.3 to adjust the deepwater port generally-applicable limit of 
liability, as we have done for purposes of this proposal.
    Finally, we have added new subsection Sec.  138.230(d). Paragraph 
(d) will cross-reference the offshore facility limit of liability, 
which DOI has proposed to adjust for inflation and set forth at 30 CFR 
553.702 (see 79 FR at 10063). Our proposal reflects DOI's proposal. If 
the section numbering of that regulation changes in DOI's final rule, 
we will change our regulatory text accordingly.
    Sec.  138.240 Procedure for updating limits of liability to reflect 
significant increases in the Consumer Price Index (Annual CPI-U) and 
statutory changes. We propose adding new Sec.  138.240(a), and re-
designating the subsections that follow accordingly. Proposed new 
subsection (a) would establish the simplified regulatory procedure the 
Coast Guard proposes to use to amend the limits of liability contained 
in proposed Sec.  138.230 to reflect significant increases in the CPI 
and when the limits of liability are amended by statute. As discussed 
above in section V.A.6, the wording in proposed Sec.  138.240(a) is 
based on a similar procedure used by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to adjust its fees for inflation (see 18 CFR 381.104(a) and 
(d)), and would help ensure regular, timely inflation adjustments to 
the OPA 90 limits of liability as intended by Congress. The approach is 
also an appropriate and helpful efficiency measure given the mandatory 
and routine nature of the CPI adjustments.
    We also propose editorial revisions, such as dividing Sec.  
138.240(b) into subparagraphs, adding a cross reference to Sec.  
138.240(a) in Sec.  138.240(c), and changing the title of Sec.  138.240 
to read ``Procedure for updating limits of liability to reflect 
significant increases in the Consumer Price Index (Annual CPI-U) and 
statutory changes.'' No other changes are being proposed to Sec.  
138.240.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize 
our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

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 both 
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility.
    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not 
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis 
of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to ascertain its 
probable impacts on industry. We consider all estimates and analysis in 
this Regulatory Analysis to be subject to change in consideration of 
public comments. A draft Regulatory Assessment is available in the 
docket and a summary follows.
1. Regulatory Costs
    There are two regulatory costs that are expected from this proposed 
rule. Regulatory Cost 1: Increased Cost of Liability. Regulatory Cost 
2: Increased cost of establishing vessel evidence of financial 
responsibility.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ It should be noted that from an economic perspective, CPI 
adjustments are actually neutral in that they maintain the cost and 
benefit impacts of the limits of liability constant in real dollar 
terms. Not adjusting the limits of liability would, by comparison, 
allow inflation to erode the value of the limits of liability in 
real terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Discussion of Regulatory Cost
    This proposed rule could increase the dollar amount of OPA 90 
removal costs and damages a responsible party of a vessel (other than a 
public vessel),\21\ deepwater port, or onshore facility must pay in the 
event of a discharge, or substantial threat of discharge, of oil into 
or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive 
economic zone of the United States (``OPA 90 incident''). This 
regulatory cost, however, would only be incurred by a responsible party 
if an OPA 90 incident resulted in OPA 90 removal costs and damages that 
exceeded the applicable vessel, deepwater port, or onshore facility 
previous limit of liability. In any such case, assuming as we do in 
this analysis that the responsible party is entitled to a limit of 
liability (i.e., none of the exceptions in 33 U.S.C. 2704(c) apply), 
the difference between the previous limit of liability amount and the 
proposed new limit of liability amount is the maximum increased cost to 
the responsible party. Incident costs above this value would not be 
borne by the responsible parties, but rather by the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See footnote 1. According to Coast Guard's MISLE database, 
there are over 200,000 vessels of various types in the vessel 
population that are not public vessels or used exclusively for 
recreational use. Examples of vessel types include, but are not 
limited to: fish processing vessel, freight barge, freight ship, 
industrial vessel, mobile offshore drilling unit, offshore supply 
vessel, oil recovery vessel, passenger vessel, commercial fishing 
vessel, passenger barge, research vessel, school ship, tank barge, 
tank ship, and towing vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Affected Population--Vessels
    Coast Guard data, as of May 2013, indicate that for the years 1991 
through 2012, 62 OPA 90 vessel incidents (i.e., an average of 
approximately 3 OPA 90 vessel incidents per year) resulted in OPA 90 
removal costs and damages in

[[Page 49213]]

excess of the previous limits of liability. For the purpose of this 
analysis, we have therefore assumed that three OPA 90 vessel incidents 
with costs exceeding the previous limits of liability would continue to 
occur each year throughout the 10-year analysis period (2014-2023).
ii. Affected Population--Deepwater Ports
    This proposed rule could affect the responsible parties of any port 
licensed under the DPA that is subject to OPA 90 (i.e., any such port, 
including its associated pipelines, that meets the OPA 90 definition of 
``facility'').\22\ Currently there are two ports in operation that are 
licensed under the DPA--LOOP and Northeast Gateway. Northeast Gateway, 
however, is a liquefied natural gas (LNG) port and, as currently 
designed and operated, it does not meet the OPA 90 definition of 
``facility''. Therefore--although a vessel visiting or servicing 
Northeast Gateway could become the source of a discharge, or 
substantial threat of discharge, of oil for which the vessel 
responsible parties would be liable under OPA 90--it is highly unlikely 
that Northeast Gateway or any similarly-designed and operated LNG port 
would be the source of an oil discharge, or substantial threat of 
discharge.\23\ We therefore, do not include LNG ports in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 33 U.S.C. 2701(6) defines ``deepwater port'' as ``a 
facility licensed under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 
1501-1524)'' [emphasis added]. 33 U.S.C. 2701(9) defines 
``facility'' to mean ``any structure, group of structures, 
equipment, or device (other than a vessel) which is used for one or 
more of the following purposes: exploring for, drilling for, 
producing, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or 
transporting oil. This term includes any motor vehicle, rolling 
stock, or pipeline used for one or more of these purposes[.]''
    \23\ Several other LNG ports were mentioned in the regulatory 
analysis for the CPI-1 Rule. But they have either not become 
operational, or are no longer in operation. For example, on July 17, 
2013, the Maritime Administrator approved a request by Suez Neptune 
LNG, LLC, for a temporary five-year suspension of its deepwater port 
license. In addition, on June 28, 2013 the Maritime Administrator 
cleared decommissioning of the Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge, and 
approved termination of its license. These LNG ports, therefore, are 
not included in this analysis. A fifth LNG port licensed under the 
DPA, Port Dolphin Energy LLC Deepwater Port (Port Dolphin), is not 
yet operational. Port Dolphin, moreover, has the same design as 
Northeast Gateway and, therefore, also would not meet the OPA 90 
definition of ``facility''. It, therefore, is not included in this 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, LOOP (the only port licensed under the DPA that is in 
operation and meets the OPA 90 definitions of ``deepwater port'' and 
``facility'') has not had an OPA 90 incident that resulted in removal 
costs and damages in excess of LOOP's previous limit of liability of 
$87,606,000. However, for the purposes of this analysis, we show the 
cost of one OPA 90 incident occurring at LOOP over the 10-year analysis 
period (2014-2023), with OPA 90 removal costs and damages in excess of 
the previous limit of liability for LOOP, as the potential for such a 
spill exists.
iii. Affected Population--Onshore Facilities
    This proposed rule could affect any responsible party for an 
onshore facility (including onshore pipelines). The impact would, 
however, only occur if the incident resulted in OPA 90 removal costs 
and damages in excess of the previous limit of liability.
    Because of the large number and diversity of onshore facilities, it 
is not possible to predict which specific types or sizes of onshore 
facilities might be affected by this proposed rule. Coast Guard data, 
as of May 2013, however, indicate that since the enactment of OPA 90 
through May 1, 2013, only one onshore facility incident--the 2010 
Enbridge Pipeline spill in Michigan--may have resulted in OPA 90 
removal costs and damages that exceeded the onshore facility previous 
limit of liability of $350,000,000.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Enbridge Pipeline incident indicates that the previous limit of 
liability for an onshore facility, although high, can still be exceeded 
by a low frequency, but high consequence oil spill. Therefore, for the 
purposes of this analysis, we assume one onshore facility incident 
would occur over the 10-year analysis time period that would result in 
OPA 90 removal costs and damages in excess of the onshore facility 
previous limit of liability.
iv. Cost Summary Regulatory Cost 1
(a) Vessels
    We estimate the greatest cost to a vessel responsible party 
entitled to a limit of liability under OPA 90, for purposes of this 
analysis, by assuming that the average annual cost from the historical 
incidents analyzed would remain constant throughout the analysis period 
(2014-2023). The average annual increased cost of liability for the 
analysis time period (2013-2024) is estimated by calculating the 
difference between the previous limit of liability and the proposed new 
limit of liability for each of the 62 historical incidents. These 
values were totaled and then divided by the number of years of data (22 
years). The average annual cost resulting from the three estimated 
vessel incidents per year is estimated to be $2,544,000 (non-discounted 
dollars). Dividing this value by the three hypothetical vessel 
incidents per year equals $848,000 for the average annual cost per 
vessel.
(b) Deepwater Ports
    We estimate the greatest cost to a deepwater port responsible party 
entitled to a limit of liability under OPA 90, for purposes of this 
analysis, by assuming that the cost of the incident would be equal to 
the proposed new limit of liability. As mentioned above, LOOP has never 
had an incident with OPA 90 removal costs and damages in excess of its 
limit of liability. Therefore, given the lack of any deepwater port 
historical data, we rely on the historical data available for vessel 
incidents with costs in excess of LOOP's previous limit of liability of 
$87,606,000.
    Specifically, we assume that the LOOP responsible parties would 
make OPA 90 removal cost and damage payments for the one hypothetical 
incident, over the course of 10 years after the incident date.\25\ In 
addition, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume that the 
payments would be spread out in equal annual amounts over the 10-year 
analysis period (2014-2023). Applying these assumptions, the average 
annual cost resulting from the one hypothetical LOOP OPA 90 incident is 
estimated to be $718,400 (non-discounted dollars).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Based on Coast Guard subject matter expert experience, we 
have made the assumption that a LOOP incident with costs above its 
Previous Limit of Liability of $87,606,000 would be analogous to a 
vessel incident with respect to the duration of responsible party 
payments until the completion date. The per-incident duration of 
payments was determined by comparing the incident date and the 
completion date for each vessel incident occurring since enactment 
of OPA 90 with incident removal costs and damages (in 2013 dollars) 
above LOOP's ``Previous Limit of Liability'' of $87,606,000. There 
were 6 incidents fitting this criteria, 3 are ongoing incidents, 3 
are completed. The average duration for the 3 completed incidents, 
was approximately 10 years.
    \26\ The only deepwater port affected by this rulemaking, LOOP, 
has a facility-specific limit of liability first established in 1995 
under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)(C), and adjusted for inflation by the 
CPI-1 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There would be no increase to Regulatory Cost 1 resulting from the 
proposed adjustment to the generally-applicable deepwater port limit of 
liability adjustment, including if, after considering any public 
comment, we decide to re-calculate the CPI adjustment to the deepwater 
port statutory limit of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(4), using the 
1990 Annual CPI-U value of 130.7 as the previous period, instead of the 
2008 Annual CPI-U value of 215.3 that we have used for purposes of this 
proposal. This is because, as previously mentioned, there are no 
deepwater ports in operation that are

[[Page 49214]]

subject to the generally-applicable OPA 90 limit of liability for 
deepwater ports.
(c) Onshore Facilities
    We estimate the greatest cost to an onshore facility responsible 
party entitled to a limit of liability under OPA 90, for purposes of 
this analysis, by assuming that the cost of the incident would be equal 
to the proposed new limit of liability. Based on NPFC's experience with 
onshore facility incidents, we assume that the onshore facility 
responsible parties would be making OPA 90 removal cost and damage 
payments for the one estimated incident, over the course of 10 years 
after the incident date.\27\ We further assume that the payments would 
be spread out in equal annual amounts over the 10-year analysis period 
(2014-2023).\28\ Applying these assumptions, the average annual cost 
resulting from the one estimated onshore facility OPA 90 incident over 
10 years is estimated to be $5,460,000 (non-discounted dollars).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The per-incident duration of payments was determined by 
comparing the incident date and the completion date of each onshore 
facility incident occurring since enactment of OPA 90 with incident 
removal costs and damages (in 2013 dollars) greater than or equal to 
$5 million. There were 21 incidents fitting this criteria, 9 are 
ongoing incidents, 12 are completed. The average duration for the 12 
completed incidents, was approximately 10 years.
    \28\ Based on Coast Guard subject matter expert experience, we 
have assumed that the payments would be spread out equally over the 
10 year analysis period. This realistically models the long duration 
of OPA 90 removal actions (particularly in the case of an onshore 
facility incident resulting in OPA 90 removal costs and damages 
exceeding the limit of liability), the time lag in billings and 
payments and, if applicable, associated claim submissions, claims 
payments and litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, after considering any public comment, we decide to calculate 
the CPI adjustments to the onshore facility limit of liability using 
the 1990 Annual CPI-U value of 130.7 as the previous period (i.e., 
instead of the 2006 Annual CPI-U value of 201.6, established by the 
CPI-1 rule that we have used for purposes of this proposal), the 
average annual cost resulting from the one estimated onshore facility 
OPA 90 incident over 10 years would be $27,370,000 (non-discounted 
dollars).
v. Present Value of Regulatory Cost 1
    The 10-year present value of Regulatory Cost 1, at a 3 percent 
discount rate, is estimated to be $74.4 million.\29\ The 10-year 
present value of Regulatory Cost 1, at a 7 percent discount rate, is 
estimated to be $61.3 million.\30\ The annualized discounted cost of 
Regulatory Cost 1, at a 3 percent discount rate, is estimated to be 
$8.7 million. The annualized discounted cost of Regulatory Cost 1, at a 
7 percent discount rate, is estimated to be $8.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The sum of the annual costs for the three source categories 
over the ten-year analysis period (i.e., $2.5 million per year for 
vessels, $0.7 million per year for deepwater ports, and $5.5 million 
per year for onshore facilities), discounted annually at a 7% 
discount rate equals $71.4 million.
    \30\ The sum of the annual costs for the three source categories 
over the ten-year analysis period (i.e., $2.5 million per year for 
vessels, $0.7 million per year for deepwater ports, and $5.5 million 
per year for onshore facilities), discounted annually at a 7% 
discount rate equals $61.3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, after considering any public comment, we decide to calculate 
the CPI adjustments to the onshore facility limit of liability and the 
generally-applicable limit of liability for deepwater ports using the 
1990 Annual CPI-U value of 130.7 as the previous period, the present 
value estimates would be as follows. The estimated 10-year present 
value of Regulatory Cost 1, at a 3 percent discount rate, would be 
$261.3 million.\31\ The estimated 10-year present value of Regulatory 
Cost 1, at a 7 percent discount rate, would be $215.1 million.\32\ The 
estimated annualized discounted cost of Regulatory Cost 1, at a 3 
percent discount rate, would be $30.6 million. The estimated annualized 
discounted cost of Regulatory Cost 1, at a 7 percent discount rate, 
would be $30.6 million.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The sum of the annual costs for the three source categories 
over the ten-year analysis period ($2.5 million per year for 
vessels, $0.7 million per year for deepwater ports, and $27.4 
million per year for onshore facilities), discounted annually at a 
3% discount rate equals $261.3 million.
    \32\ The sum of the annual costs for the three source categories 
over the ten-year analysis period ($2.5 million per year for 
vessels, $0.7 million per year for deepwater ports, and $27.4 
million per year for onshore facilities), discounted annually at a 
7% discount rate equals $215.1 million.
    \33\ As previously mentioned, there are no deepwater ports in 
operation that are subject to the generally-applicable limit of 
liability for deepwater ports. Therefore, re-calculating the CPI 
adjustment to the deepwater port statutory limit of liability in 33 
U.S.C. 2704(a)(4), using the 1990 Annual CPI-U value of 130.7 as the 
previous period, instead of the 2008 Annual CPI-U value of 215.3 
used for purposes of this proposal, would not result in any 
Regulatory Cost 1 impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Discussion of Regulatory Cost 2
    OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2716) requires that the responsible parties for 
deepwater ports and certain types and sizes of vessels establish and 
maintain evidence of financial responsibility to ensure that they have 
the ability to pay for OPA 90 removal costs and damages, up to the 
applicable limits of liability, in the event of an OPA 90 incident.\34\ 
Therefore, because the regulatory changes contemplated by this proposed 
rule would increase those limits of liability, vessel and deepwater 
port responsible parties may incur additional costs establishing and 
maintaining evidence of financial responsibility as a result of this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ OPA 90 does not impose evidence of financial responsibility 
requirements on onshore facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule could increase the cost to vessel 
and deepwater port responsible parties associated with establishing OPA 
90 evidence of financial responsibility in two ways:
    [ssquf] Responsible parties using Insurance as their method of 
demonstrating financial responsibility could incur higher Insurance 
premiums.
    [ssquf] Some responsible parties currently using the Self-Insurance 
or Financial Guaranty methods of demonstrating financial responsibility 
might need to acquire Insurance, and would thereby incur new Insurance 
premium costs. This would only be the case if the financial conditions 
(working capital and net worth) of Self-Insuring responsible parties or 
Financial Guarantors no longer qualified them to provide OPA 90 
evidence of financial responsibility.
i. Affected Population--Vessels
    Vessel responsible parties may establish evidence of financial 
responsibility using any of the following methods: Insurance, Self-
Insurance, Financial Guaranty, Surety Bonds, or any other method 
approved by the Director, NPFC.\35\ This proposed rule could affect the 
cost to vessel responsible parties of establishing and maintaining 
evidence of financial responsibility using the Insurance, Self-
Insurance or Financial Guaranty methods of financial responsibility. As 
of 18 October 2011, the NPFC's certificate of financial responsibility 
(COFR) database contained 21,077 vessels using Insurance, 957 vessels 
using Self-Insurance and 2,530 vessels using Financial Guaranties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 33 CFR 138.80(b). Currently, however, there are no 
vessel responsible parties using the Surety Bond method of financial 
responsibility, and, based on historical experience, NPFC does not 
expect any responsible parties will use this method during the 
analysis period (2014-2023). In addition, there currently are no 
vessel responsible parties using other methods of demonstrating 
financial responsibility approved by Director, NPFC, and, based on 
historical experience, NPFC does not expect any responsible parties 
will use any other method during the analysis period (2014-2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Affected Population--Deepwater Ports
    As previously discussed (see Affected Population--Deepwater Ports, 
above under Regulatory Cost 1), LOOP is the only operating deepwater 
port that would be affected by this proposed rule. Currently LOOP uses 
a Director-approved method of establishing

[[Page 49215]]

financial responsibility. Specifically, the Director, NPFC, accepts the 
following documentation as evidence of financial responsibility for 
LOOP:
     LOOP's insurance policy issued by Oil Insurance Limited 
(OIL) of Bermuda with coverage up to $150 million per OPA 90 incident 
and a $225 million annual aggregate,
     Documentation that LOOP operates with a net worth of at 
least $50 million, and
     Documentation that the total value of the OIL policy 
aggregate plus LOOP's working capital does not fall below $100 million.
iii. Affected Population--Onshore Facilities
    None. Onshore facilities are not required to establish and maintain 
evidence of financial responsibility under 33 U.S.C. 2716.
iv. Cost Summary Regulatory Cost 2
(a) Vessels
    Increases to Vessel Insurance Premiums. The calculation of 
Insurance premium rates are dependent on many constantly changing 
factors, including: market forces, interest rates and investment 
opportunities for the premium income, the terms and conditions of the 
policy, and underwriting criteria such as vessel age, loss history, 
construction, classification details, and management history. As 
calculated above, the proposed percent change in the limits of 
liability for vessels is 8.2%. Based on estimates received from 
Insurance companies,\36\ it is assumed that an 8.2% increase in the 
limits of liability would cause, on average, a 6.0% increase in 
Insurance premiums charged across all vessel types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Data was requested from 9 of a possible 14 Insurance 
companies. Four responded with their current premium rates and their 
best estimates of the increase in premium rates resulting from the 
proposed regulatory change. These four Insurance companies represent 
approximately 93% of vessels that use the Insurance method of 
financial responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated costs were calculated by multiplying the number of 
vessels by vessel category for each year of the analysis period (2014-
2023) by the Expected Average Increase in Premium for that particular 
vessel type. The annual cost associated with increased Insurance 
premiums is estimated to be between $6.6 million and $6.7 million (non-
discounted dollars).
    Migration of vessel responsible parties currently using the Self-
Insurance and Financial Guaranty Methods of Financial Responsibility to 
the Insurance Market.
    Based on the financial documentation received from vessel 
responsible parties using the Self-Insurance or Financial Guaranty 
methods, the Coast Guard estimates that the responsible parties for 2% 
of the vessels that have COFRs based on those methods might need to 
migrate to the Insurance method of financial responsibility. The cost 
estimates for vessel responsible parties migrating to the Insurance 
method of financial responsibility were calculated by first multiplying 
the number of vessels using Self Insurance or Financial Guaranty by 
vessel category for each year of the analysis period (2014-2023) by the 
presumed percent of impacted vessels (2%) and then multiplying the 
product by the estimated Expected Average Annual Premium for that 
particular vessel type. The annual cost associated with vessel 
responsible parties migrating to Insurance is estimated to be between 
$326,000 and $334,000 (non-discounted dollars).
(b) LOOP
    An increase in the LOOP limit of liability of the magnitude 
proposed by this rulemaking is not expected to increase the cost to the 
LOOP responsible parties associated with establishing and maintaining 
LOOP's evidence of financial responsibility. This is because the LOOP 
responsible parties provide evidence of financial responsibility to the 
Coast Guard at a level that exceeds both LOOP's previous limit of 
liability and the proposed new limit of liability of $93,388,000.
    The Coast Guard, therefore, does not expect this action to change 
the terms of the OIL policy, to result in an increased premium for the 
OIL policy, or to require LOOP to have higher minimum net worth or 
working capital requirements.
v. Present Value of Regulatory Cost 2
    The 10-year present value, at a 3 percent discount rate, is 
estimated to be $59.1 million. The 10-year present value, at a 7 
percent discount rate, is estimated to be $48.7 million.\37\ The 
annualized discounted cost, at a 3 percent discount rate, is estimated 
to be $6.9 million.\38\ The annualized discounted cost, at a 7 percent 
discount rate, is estimated to be $6.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The sum of the annual costs for the two subcategories of 
Regulatory Cost 2 over the ten-year analysis period (ranging from 
$6.6 million per year to $6.7 million per year for increased vessel 
insurance premiums, and from $0.326 million to $0.334 million per 
year for migration of some vessels to the Insurance method of 
financial responsibility), discounted annually at a 3% discount rate 
equals $59.1 million.
    \38\ The sum of the annual costs for the two subcategories of 
Regulatory Cost 2 over the ten-year analysis period (ranging from 
$6.6 million per year to $6.7 million per year for increased vessel 
insurance premiums, and from $0.326 million to $0.334 million per 
year for migration of some vessels to the Insurance method of 
financial responsibility), discounted annually at a 7% discount rate 
equals $48.7 million.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Total Cost = Regulatory Cost 1 + Regulatory Cost 2

    The 10-year present value, at a 3 percent discount rate, is 
estimated to be $133.5 million.\39\ The 10-year present value, at a 7 
percent discount rate, is estimated to be $110.0 million.\40\ The 
annualized discounted cost, at a 3 percent discount rate, is estimated 
to be $14.3 million. The annualized discounted cost, at a 7 percent 
discount rate, is estimated to be $14.3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ This is the sum of Regulatory Cost 1 ($74.4 million) and 
Regulatory Cost 2 ($59.1 million).
    \40\ This is the sum of Regulatory Cost 1 ($61.3 million) and 
Regulatory Cost 2 ($48.7 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, after considering any public comment, we decide to calculate 
the CPI adjustments to the onshore facility limit of liability and the 
generally-applicable limit of liability for deepwater ports using the 
1990 Annual CPI-U value of 130.7 as the previous period, the present 
value estimates would be as follows. The estimated 10-year present 
value, at a 3 percent discount rate, would be $320.4 million.\41\ The 
estimated 10-year present value, at a 7 percent discount rate, would be 
$263.8 million.\42\ The estimated annualized discounted cost, at a 3 
percent discount rate, would be $37.6 million. The estimated annualized 
discounted cost, at a 7 percent discount rate, would be $37.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ This is the sum of Regulatory Cost 1 ($261 million) and 
Regulatory Cost 2 ($59.1 million).
    \42\ This is the sum of Regulatory Cost 1 ($215.1 million) and 
Regulatory Cost 2 ($48.7 million). The amounts do not add up due to 
rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Regulatory Benefits
    a. Regulatory Benefit 1: Ensure that the OPA 90 limits of liability 
keep pace with inflation.
    OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)) mandates that limits of liability be 
updated periodically to reflect significant increases in the CPI to 
account for inflation. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that 
the real values of the limits of liability do not decline over time. 
Absent CPI adjustments, the responsible parties ultimately benefit 
because they pay a reduced percentage of the total incident costs they 
would be required to pay with inflation incorporated into the 
determination of their limit of liability. Requiring responsible 
parties to internalize costs by adjusting their limits of liability for 
inflation ensures that the appropriate amount of cleanup,

[[Page 49216]]

response and damage costs are borne by the responsible party.
    b. Regulatory Benefit 2: Ensure that the responsible party is held 
accountable.
    Increasing the limits of liability to account for inflation ensures 
that the appropriate amount of removal costs and damages are borne by 
the responsible party and that liability risk is not shifted away from 
the responsible party to the Fund. This helps preserve the ``polluter 
pays'' principle as intended by Congress and preserves the Fund for its 
other authorized uses. Failing to adjust the limits of liability for 
inflation, by comparison, shifts those costs to the public and the 
Fund.
    c. Regulatory Benefit 3: Reduce and deter substandard shipping and 
oil handling practices.
    Increasing the limits of liability serves to reduce the number of 
substandard ships in U.S. waters and ports because insurers are less 
likely to provide Insurance to, and Financial Guarantors are less 
likely to guaranty, substandard vessels at the new levels of OPA 90 
liability. Maintaining the limits of liability also helps preserve the 
deterrent effect of the OPA 90 liability provisions for Self Insurers.
    With respect to oil handling practices, the higher the responsible 
parties' limits of liability are, the greater the incentive for them to 
operate in the safest and most risk-averse manner possible. Conversely, 
the lower the limits of liability, the lower the incentive is for 
responsible parties to spend money on capital improvements and 
operation and maintenance systems that will protect against oil spills.

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.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) discussing the 
impact of this proposed rule on small entities is included in the 
Regulatory Analysis that is available in the docket. A summary of the 
IRFA follows.
    There are two potential economic impacts to small entities that 
would result from this proposed rule:
    Regulatory Cost 1. Increased Cost of Liability
    Regulatory Cost 2. Increased Cost of Establishing Evidence of 
Financial Responsibility.
1. Regulatory Cost 1: Increased Cost of Liability
    As explained in Part IV.A. of this preamble and in the Regulatory 
Analysis for this proposed rule, Regulatory Cost 1 would only occur if 
there was an OPA 90 incident that had removal costs and damages in 
excess of the existing limits of liability.
a. Vessels
    This proposed rule could affect the responsible parties of any 
vessel, other than a public vessel,\43\ from which oil is discharged, 
or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or 
upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive 
economic zone of the United States. Coast Guard data indicate that, 
since the enactment of OPA 90 through May 1, 2013, there were 62 OPA 90 
vessel incidents (i.e., an average of approximately three OPA 90 vessel 
incidents per year) that resulted in OPA 90 removal costs and damages 
in excess of the previous limits of liability. For the purpose of this 
analysis, we have therefore assumed that three OPA 90 vessel incidents 
would continue to occur each year throughout the 10-year analysis 
period (2014-2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 33 U.S.C. 2701(29) and (37) (definitions of public 
vessel and vessel) and 33 U.S.C. 2702(c)(2) (public vessel 
exclusion). According to Coast Guard's MISLE database, there are 
over 200,000 vessels of various types in the vessel population that 
are not public vessels or used exclusively for recreational use. 
Examples of vessel types include, but are not limited to: fish 
processing vessel, freight barge, freight ship, industrial vessel, 
mobile offshore drilling unit, offshore supply vessel, oil recovery 
vessel, passenger vessel, commercial fishing vessel, passenger 
barge, research vessel, school ship, tank barge, tank ship, and 
towing vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vessel population encompasses dozens of North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes. It, therefore, would not be 
practical to predict which specific type or size of vessel might be 
involved in the three hypothetical incidents assumed to occur per year, 
or whether they would involve small entities.
    Incident cost data show that the average cost of an incident that 
exceeds the current limit of liability is approximately $848,000. 
Therefore, in the event that a small entity had a vessel incident with 
OPA 90 removal costs and damages of this magnitude, it would likely 
have a significant economic impact.
b. Deepwater Ports
    As discussed in Part IV.A. of this preamble, and in the Regulatory 
Analysis for this rulemaking, the only deepwater port affected by this 
proposed rule is LOOP. LOOP, however, does not meet the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) criteria to be categorized as a small entity.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ LOOP is a limited liability corporation (NAICS Code: 
48691001) owned by three major oil companies: Marathon Oil Company, 
Murphy Oil Corporation, and Shell Oil Company. None of these 
companies are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Onshore Facilities
    As discussed in Part IV.A., of this preamble, and in the Regulatory 
Analysis for this rulemaking, this proposed rule could affect any 
responsible party for an onshore facility.\45\ Since the enactment of 
OPA 90, however, the 2010 Enbridge Pipeline spill in Michigan may well 
be the only onshore facility incident resulting in removal costs and 
damages that exceed the $350 million onshore facility limit of 
liability; \46\ and this onshore facility is not a small entity. 
Nevertheless, in the Regulatory Analysis for this proposed rule, we 
assume that there would be one onshore facility incident occurring over 
the 10 year analysis period with OPA 90 removal costs and damages 
exceeding the existing limit of liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2701(9)) defines ``facility'' as ``any 
structure, group of structures, equipment, or device (other than a 
vessel) which is used for one or more of the following purposes: 
exploring for, drilling for, producing, storing, handling, 
transferring, processing, or transporting oil. This term includes 
any motor vehicle, rolling stock, or pipeline used for one or more 
of these purposes''. OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2701(24)) defines an 
``onshore facility'' as ``any facility (including but not limited 
to, motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind located in, on, or 
under, any land within the United States other than submerged 
land.''
    \46\ Reliable supporting estimates of the OPA 90 removal costs 
and damages resulting from incident are not currently available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The onshore facility population encompasses dozens of NAICS codes 
representing diverse industries.\47\ It, therefore, would not be 
practical to predict which specific type or size of onshore facility 
might be involved in the one hypothetical incident assumed to occur 
over the 10-year analysis period, or whether it would involve a small 
entity. However, in the event a small entity onshore facility was to 
have an incident with OPA 90 removal costs and damages of this 
magnitude, it

[[Page 49217]]

would likely have a significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Examples of onshore facilities include, but are not limited 
to: onshore pipelines; rail; motor carriers; petroleum bulk stations 
and terminals; petroleum refineries; government installations; oil 
production facilities; electrical utility plants; mobile facilities; 
marinas, marine fuel stations and related facilities; farms; fuel 
oil dealers; and gasoline stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Regulatory Cost 2--Increased Cost of Establishing Evidence of 
Financial Responsibility
i. Vessels
    Regulatory Cost 2 would only apply to vessel responsible parties 
required to provide evidence of financial responsibility under OPA 90 
(33 U.S.C. 2716) and 33 CFR part 138, subpart A. As of July 3, 2013, 
there were 1,744 unique entities in the Coast Guard's COFR database 
that could be affected by this proposed rulemaking. Because of the 
large number of entities, we determined the statistically significant 
sample size necessary to represent the population. The appropriate 
statistical sample size for the population, at a 95% confidence level 
and a 5% confidence interval, is 315 entities. This means we are 95% 
certain that the characteristics of the sample reflect the 
characteristics of the entire population within a margin of error of + 
or-5%.
    Using a random number generator, we then randomly selected the 315 
entities from the population for analysis. Of the sample, 309 were 
businesses, 0 were not-for-profit organizations, and 6 were 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For each business entity, we next determined the number of 
employees, annual revenue, and NAICS Code to the extent possible using 
public and proprietary business databases. The SBA's publication ``U.S. 
Small Business Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards 
Matched to North American Industry Classification System codes 
effective January 22, 2014'' \48\ was then used to determine whether an 
entity is a small entity. For governmental jurisdictions, we determined 
whether they had populations of less than 50,000 as per the criteria in 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the sampled population, 220 would be considered small entities 
using the SBA criteria, 72 would not be small entities, and no data was 
found for the remaining 23 entities.\49\ If we assume that the entities 
where no revenue or employee data was found are small entities, then 
small entities make up 77 percent of the sample.\50\ We can then 
extrapolate the entire population of entities from the sample using the 
following formula, where ``X'' is the number of small entities within 
the total population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The 6 governmental jurisdictions were a subset of the 23 
entities where no data was found.
    \50\ The data show that small entities are often responsible 
parties for multiple vessels.

(X small entities in the total population divided by 1,744 total 
entities in the population) = (243 small entities in the sample/315 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
total entities in the sample)

    Solving for X, X equals 1,345 small entities within the total 
population.
    As discussed in the Regulatory Analysis, the proposed rule could 
increase the cost to vessel responsible parties associated with 
establishing OPA 90 evidence of financial responsibility in two ways:
    (1) Responsible parties using the Insurance method of financial 
responsibility could incur higher Insurance premiums.
    (2) Some responsible parties currently using the Self-Insurance or 
Financial Guaranty method of establishing evidence financial 
responsibility might need to acquire Insurance for their vessels. This 
would only be the case if the Self-Insuring responsible parties or 
financial guarantors' financial condition (working capital and net 
worth) no longer qualified them to provide OPA 90 evidence of financial 
responsibility.
    As calculated in the Regulatory Analysis, the average annual per 
vessel increase in Insurance premium for responsible parties using the 
Insurance method of establishing evidence of financial responsibility 
is $480. The average annual cost per vessel migrating from the Self-
insurance/Financial Guaranty methods to the Insurance method is $8,240 
per vessel.
    Based on review of financial data of entities using the Self-
Insurance or Financial Guaranty method for establishing evidence of 
financial responsibility, Coast Guard subject matter experts estimate 
that responsible parties for 2% of vessels using those two methods 
would not have the requisite working capital and net worth necessary to 
qualify for these methods as a result of this proposed rule. In those 
cases, they would have to use the Insurance method to establish and 
maintain evidence of financial responsibility.
    The increased cost of establishing evidence of financial 
responsibility for each small entity is calculated by:
    1. Multiplying the number of vessels using the Insurance Method by 
the Average Increase in Premium ($480), and
    2. Adding the product of the number of vessels using the Self-
Insurance and Financial Guaranty methods multiplied by the Average 
Annual Premium ($8,240), multiplied by 2%.
    For example, for a hypothetical small entity using the Insurance 
Method for three vessels and having to change from the Self-Insurance 
or Financial Guaranty Method to the insurance method for two vessels 
(i.e., both vessels falling within the 2%), the calculation would be as 
follows:
(3 vessels using Insurance Method x $480/year) + (100 vessels using 
Self-Insurance or Financial Guaranty Method x 2% of vessels expected to 
migrate from Self-Insurance or Financial Guaranty Method to the 
Insurance Method x $8,240/year) = $17,950/year

    This calculation was conducted for each small entity and the value 
was then divided by the annual revenue for the small entity and then 
multiplied by 100 to determine the percent impact of this proposed rule 
on the small entities' annual revenue. The figure below shows the 
economic impact to vessel small entities of Regulatory Cost 2.

       Economic Impact to Vessel Small Entities--Regulatory Cost 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Extrapolated
        Percent of annual revenue            number of      Percent of
                                          small entities  small entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2..................................              54               4
<1......................................           1,291              96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Deepwater Ports
    Because there are no small entity deepwater ports, there would be 
no Regulatory Cost 2 small entity impacts to Deepwater Ports.
iii. Onshore Facilities
    As stated in the Regulatory Analysis for this rulemaking, onshore 
facilities are not required to establish and maintain evidence of 
financial responsibility under 33 U.S.C. 2716. There would therefore be 
no Regulatory Cost 2 small entity impacts to Onshore Facilities.
    If you think your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the 
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your 
comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree 
this rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.

[[Page 49218]]

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 consult Benjamin White, 
National Pollution Funds Center, Coast Guard, telephone 703-872-6066. 
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 no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132 
(``Federalism'') if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that 
Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental 
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 
13132. This proposed rule makes necessary adjustments to the OPA 90 
limits of liability to reflect significant increases in the CPI, 
establishes a framework for such future CPI increases, and clarifies 
the OPA 90 limits of liability for certain vessels. Nothing in this 
proposed rule would affect the preservation of State authorities under 
33 U.S.C. 2718, including the authority of any State to impose 
additional liability or financial responsibility requirements with 
respect to discharges of oil within such State. Therefore, it has no 
implications for federalism.
    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, E.O. 
13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local 
governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has 
implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, please contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 (adjusted for 
inflation) 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 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 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 (e.g., 
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test 
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, 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 environmental analysis 
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' section of this preamble. This proposed rule would increase 
the OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels, deepwater ports, and 
onshore facilities to reflect significant increases in the CPI using 
the methodology established in the CPI-1 Rule. This proposed rule is 
expected to be categorically excluded under paragraph 34(a), of the 
current instruction, from further environmental documentation, in 
accordance with Section 2.B.2. and Figure 2-1 of the national 
Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and Policy for 
Considering Environmental Impacts, COMDTINST M16475.1D. We seek any 
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant

[[Page 49219]]

environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 138

    Hazardous materials transportation, Financial responsibility, 
Guarantors, Insurance, Limits of liability, Oil pollution, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Water pollution control.

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

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

0
1. The authorities citation for part 138 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716, 2716a; 42 U.S.C. 9608, 9609; 6 
U.S.C. 552; E.O. 12580, Sec. 7(b), 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193; E.O. 
12777, Sec. 4, as amended by E.O. 13638 of March 15, 2013, Sec. 1 
(78 FR 17589, Thursday, March 21, 2013); E.O. 12777, Sec. 5, 3 CFR, 
1991 Comp., p. 351, as amended by E.O. 13286, Sec. 89, 3 CFR, 2004 
Comp., p. 166; Department of Homeland Security Delegation Nos. 
0170.1 and 5110, Revision 01. Section 138.30 also issued under the 
authority of 46 U.S.C. 2103 and 14302.

0
2. Revise the heading to part 138 to read as set forth above.
0
3. Revise Subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--OPA 90 Limits of Liability (Vessels, Deepwater Ports and 
Onshore Facilities)
Sec.
138.200 Scope.
138.210 Applicability.
138.220 Definitions.
138.230 Limits of liability.
138.240 Procedure for updating limits of liability to reflect 
significant increases in the Consumer Price Index (Annual CPI-U) and 
statutory changes.


Sec.  138.200  Scope.

    This subpart sets forth the limits of liability under Title I of 
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.) 
(OPA 90) for vessels, deepwater ports, and onshore facilities, as 
adjusted under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)). This subpart also sets forth 
the method and procedure the Coast Guard uses to periodically adjust 
the OPA 90 limits of liability by regulation under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 
2704(d)(4)), to reflect significant increases in the Consumer Price 
Index (CPI), and to update the limits of liability when they are 
amended by statute. In addition, this subpart cross-references the U.S. 
Department of the Interior regulation setting forth the OPA 90 limit of 
liability applicable to offshore facilities, including offshore 
pipelines, as adjusted under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)) to reflect 
significant increases in the CPI.


Sec.  138.210  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to you if you are a responsible party for a 
vessel, a deepwater port, or an onshore facility, unless your liability 
is unlimited under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(c)).


Sec.  138.220  Definitions.

    (a) As used in this subpart, the following terms have the meanings 
set forth in OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2701): deepwater port, facility, gross 
ton, liability, oil, offshore facility, onshore facility, responsible 
party, tank vessel, and vessel.
    (b) As used in this subpart--
    Annual CPI-U means the annual ``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.
    Current period means the year in which the Annual CPI-U was most 
recently published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.
    Director, NPFC means the person in charge of the U.S. Coast Guard, 
National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), or that person's authorized 
representative.
    Edible oil tank vessel means a tank vessel referred to in OPA 90 
(33 U.S.C. 2704(c)(4)(A)).
    Oil spill response vessel means a tank vessel referred to in OPA 90 
(33 U.S.C. 2704(c)(4)(B)).
    Previous period means the year in which the previous limit of 
liability was established, or last adjusted by statute or regulation, 
whichever is later.
    Single-hull means the hull of a tank vessel that is constructed or 
adapted to carry, or that carries, oil in bulk as cargo or cargo 
residue, that is not a double hull as defined in 33 CFR part 157. 
Single-hull includes the hull of any such tank vessel that is fitted 
with double sides only or a double bottom only.


Sec.  138.230  Limits of liability.

    (a) Vessels. The OPA 90 limits of liability for vessels are--
    (1) Limits of liability for tank vessels, other than edible oil 
tank vessels and oil spill response vessels.
    (i) For a single-hull tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, 
the greater of $3,500 per gross ton or $25,422,700;
    (ii) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, other than a 
single-hull tank vessel, the greater of $2,200 per gross ton or 
$18,489,200.
    (iii) For a single-hull tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 
gross tons, the greater of $3,500 per gross ton or $6,933,500.
    (iv) For a tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons, 
other than a single-hull tank vessel, the greater of $2,200 per gross 
ton or $4,622,300.
    (2) Limits of liability for any other vessels. For any other 
vessel, including an edible oil tank vessel or an oil spill response 
vessel, the greater of $1,100 per gross ton or $924,500.
    (b) Deepwater ports. The OPA 90 limits of liability for deepwater 
ports are--
    (1) For deepwater ports generally, and except as set forth in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, $404,451,600;
    (2) For deepwater ports with limits of liability established by 
regulation under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)):
    (i) For the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), $94,789,700; and
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (c) Onshore facilities. The OPA 90 limit of liability for onshore 
facilities, $404,600,000;
    (d) Offshore facilities. The OPA 90 limit of liability for offshore 
facilities, including any offshore pipeline, is set forth at 30 CFR 
553.702.


Sec.  138.240  Procedure for updating limits of liability to reflect 
significant increases in the Consumer Price Index (Annual CPI-U) and 
statutory changes.

    (a) Update and publication. The Director, NPFC, will periodically 
adjust the limits of liability set forth in Sec.  138.230(a) through 
(c) to reflect significant increases in the Annual CPI-U, according to 
the procedure for calculating limit of liability inflation adjustments 
set forth in paragraphs (b)-(d) of this section, and will publish the 
inflation-adjusted limits of liability and any statutory amendments to 
those limits of liability in the Federal Register as amendments to 
Sec.  138.230. Updates to the limits of liability under this section 
are effective on the 90th day after publication in the Federal Register 
of the amendments to Sec.  138.230, unless otherwise specified by 
statute (in the event of a statutory amendment to the limits of 
liability) or in the Federal Register notice amending Sec.  138.230.
    (b) Formula for calculating a cumulative percent change in the 
Annual CPI-U. (1) 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 (i.e., the previous period), to the most recently published 
Annual CPI-U (i.e., the current period), using the following escalation 
formula:


[[Page 49220]]


Percent change in the Annual CPI-U = [(Annual CPI-U for Current Period 
- Annual CPI-U for Previous Period) / Annual CPI-U for Previous Period] 
x 100.

    (2) This cumulative percent change value is rounded to one decimal 
place.
    (c) Significance threshold. Not later than every three years from 
the year the limits of liability were last adjusted for inflation, 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 inflation adjustment to 
the limits 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 limits of liability were last 
adjusted for inflation 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 limits of liability, by regulation using the procedure set 
forth in paragraph (a) of this section, for all source categories 
(including any new limit of liability established by statute or 
regulation since the last time the limits of liability were adjusted 
for inflation) by an amount equal to the cumulative percent change in 
the Annual CPI-U from the year each limit was established, or last 
adjusted by statute or regulation, whichever is later. Nothing in this 
paragraph shall prevent the Director, NPFC, in the Director's sole 
discretion, from adjusting the limits of liability for inflation by 
regulation issued more frequently than every three years.
    (d) 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 = Previous limit of liability + (Previous limit 
of liability x percent change in the Annual CPI-U calculated under 
paragraph (b) of this section), then rounded to the closest $100.

    Dated: August 11, 2014.
William R. Grawe,
Acting Director, National Pollution Funds Center, United States Coast 
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-19314 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


