80 FR 26324 - Pipeline Safety: Liquefied Natural Gas Facility User Fee Rate Increase
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)
| Page Range | 26324-26327 | |
| FR Document | 2015-10614 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 26324-26327] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-10614] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0051] Pipeline Safety: Liquefied Natural Gas Facility User Fee Rate Increase ACTION: Notice of agency action. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation. SUMMARY: On July 3, 2014, (79 FR 38124) the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in this docket to advise all liquefied natural gas facility (LNG) operators subject to PHMSA user fee billing of a change in the LNG user fee rates to align these rates with the actual allocation of PHMSA resources to LNG program costs. PHMSA is publishing this notice to explain changes PHMSA has made to the rate plan described in the July notice in response to the comments received and to communicate PHMSA's final LNG user fee plan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener by telephone at 202-366- 0970, by email at [email protected], or by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA, PHP-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Background The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-272, Sec. 7005) codified at Section 60301 of Title 49, United States Code, authorizes the assessment and collection of user fees to fund the pipeline safety activities conducted under Chapter 601 of Title 49. PHMSA assesses each operator of interstate and intrastate gas transmission pipelines (as defined in 49 CFR part 192) and hazardous liquid pipelines carrying crude oil, refined petroleum products, highly volatile liquids, biofuel, and carbon dioxide (as defined in 49 CFR part 195) a share of the total Federal pipeline safety program costs in proportion to the number of miles of pipeline for each operator. In accordance with COBRA, PHMSA also assesses user fees on LNG facilities (as defined in 49 CFR part 193). On July 16, 1986, the agency published in the Federal Register a notice for pipeline safety user fees to describe the agency's implementation of the requirements set forth in the COBRA Act (51 FR 25782) (the user fee notice). With respect to pipelines, the user fee notice adopted pipeline mileage as the fee basis. With respect to the LNG facility portion of the gas program costs, a fee basis other than mileage was needed. For these facilities, the agency decided that storage capacity was the most readily measurable indicator of usage as well as allocation of agency resources. In order to ensure that user fees assessed for each type of pipeline facility have a reasonable relationship to the allocation of departmental resources, the user fee notice established five percent of total gas program costs as the appropriate level and established billing tiers based on the storage capacity of LNG facilities. In 2014, PHMSA determined that certain changes to the calculation table were necessary because the LNG rates had not been adjusted to reflect the increase in gas program costs since 1986. On July 3, 2014, (79 FR 38124) PHMSA issued a Federal Register notice describing PHMSA's planned approach to updating the LNG user fee assessments. The notice described PHMSA's intention to update the rate for each of the five storage capacity tiers in the table to arrive at five percent of total gas program costs when the tiers are added together. PHMSA stated that it plans to implement the increase in the LNG facility obligation in three equal increments starting in 2015 and invited comments. Based on the comments received, PHMSA has revised its approach and is now establishing 1.6 percent of total gas program costs as the appropriate level and has determined that at this lower level there is no longer a need to implement the increase over 3 years. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Comments on the July 3, 2014 Notice During the 2-month response period, PHMSA received comments on the [[Page 26325]] proposed LNG user fee billing methodology from six commenters: The American Gas Association (AGA), the American Public Gas Association (APGA), Metropolitan Utilities District (MUD), Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), the Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC), and one individual commenter, David Wilson. This notice responds to the comments, which may be found at http://www.regulations.gov, at docket number PHMSA-2014-0051. The comments are summarized below and followed by PHMSA's response. Comment: AGA commented that PHMSA should provide companies with more time to adjust to this increase by modifying the timeline by which the LNG user fees are raised to 5 percent of the overall User Fee Obligation by phasing the increase in over 5 years instead of the proposed 3-year period so that ``operators can modify their short, midterm and long term budgeting to accommodate this impactful increase.'' Response: In response to comments, PHMSA revisited the actual annual LNG program costs and determined that a rate of 1.6 percent of gas costs would cover actual annual LNG program costs. Accordingly, PHMSA expects that the resulting user fee increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs (68 percent lower than initially proposed) will not pose an undue burden for any LNG facility operator. PHMSA will implement the increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs in a single year (FY 2015 user fee billing) rather than over a 3-year period as was proposed for an increase to 5% of gas costs. Comment: APGA, AGA, and BGE suggested that PHMSA should pursue cost recovery for the design reviews of new LNG facilities as granted in section 13 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. ``AGA believes once this regulation has been codified, PHMSA will have the ability to accurately allocate fees to those operators that are utilizing a large portion of PHMSA personnel and resources, thus reducing the overall User Fee Obligation.'' Response: PHMSA appreciates the comments of the AGA, APGA, and BGE and does not disagree. After the design review envisioned in the law is implemented, PHMSA will reevaluate the user fee approach for LNG plants, gas transmission pipelines, and hazardous liquid pipelines and consider making appropriate modifications. Comment: AGA, APGA, GUC, and MUD commented that PHMSA's proposal to increase LNG user fee collection to 5 percent or $3,774,405 in 3 years will be a significant burden especially to many small LNG operators. Response: In addition to reducing the proposed 5 percent level to 1.6 percent, PHMSA has modified the plan to shift more of the user fee obligation to larger operators by implementing a new 10 tier billing by total capacity by OPID. Specifically, PHMSA added five new billing tiers to reduce the burden on small operators. These new tiers include an ultra-low storage capacity tier to reduce the burden on operators with storage capacity less than 2,000 barrels. Another tier was added for operators with less than 50,000 barrels of storage. The previous tier structure generated the same fee for all plants over 500,000 barrels of storage, but the highest storage volume in FY 2014 billing was 5 million barrels. We adjusted the boundaries of the top two tiers and added three new tiers for operators with very high storage capacity. Finally, it should be noted that PHMSA exempts mobile and temporary LNG facilities from user fee billing. Comment: APGA commented ``PHMSA's proposal does, however, unfairly burdens small LNG peakshaving facilities with a disproportionate share of the costs'' and it places a disproportionate burden on the operators of small LNG peakshaving facilities. For example, Greenville Utility Commission in North Carolina would pay approximately $10,000 per year, or just over $2 per bbl, for its LNG peak shaving plant with a storage capacity of 4,762 bbls. In contrast, Sabine Pass LNG Terminal with over 5 million barrels storage would pay just $60,000, or about 1 penny per bbl. Response: LNG plants typically include facilities other than storage. Barrels of storage alone do not necessarily reflect the effort associated with regulatory oversight of the plant. Comment: APGA noted that the disparity in costs to small peak shaving facilities vs. larger import/export facilities is ``particularly troubling because it results in U.S. gas consumers paying as much as 200 times what consumers in countries that import US LNG would pay. The ultimate consumers of natural gas exported through these large LNG marine terminals reside in LNG importing countries such as Japan. The ultimate consumers of natural gas coming from Greenville's LNG peakshaving plant reside in Greenville, NC. To charge the citizens of Greenville, NC, pipeline safety user fees that are 200 times higher than those charged to the citizens of Japan makes no sense. Fairness would dictate that the larger LNG export facilities pay at least the same rate per barrel as smaller, domestic LNG peakshaving facilities.'' GUC, BGE, and MUD agreed with the comments about the disparity seen in billing of small peak shaving vs. larger import/ export facilities. BGE proposed to increase the billing tiers for facilities with >500,000 barrels to add appropriate larger tiers as appropriate for import/export facilities to more fairly apportion costs across LNG facility types. BGE noted that ``These large import and, in the future, export terminals are commercially oriented and operated and are not limited like smaller storage capacity facilities generally associated with satellite and peak shaving facilities operated typically by LDC's under limited Rate of Returns (ROR's) authorized by their state public utility commissions (PUCs).'' BGE further noted that under 49 U.S.C. 60301(a), ``The fees shall be based on usage (in reasonable relationship to volume-miles, miles, revenue, or a combination of volume-miles and revenues) of the pipelines. If the larger base load facilities that are import terminals and those terminals that become authorized to export and their facilities are constructed, thereby causing PHMSA increased regulatory costs, these facilities should carry a larger burden of the total LNG program costs moving forward.'' Response: PHMSA is planning to increase the number of tiers used for LNG user fee billing to ensure that smaller plants are not disproportionately burdened. We are implementing new tiers with a higher user fee rate for plants with very high storage volumes, such as export plants. PHMSA also determined that a rate of 1.6 percent of gas costs covers actual annual LNG program expenses, a rate 68 percent lower than the 5 percent of gas costs initially proposed. The increase proposed is 68 percent lower than the initially proposed increase, and that lower amount presents a much lower overall burden to all LNG operators, regardless of size. PHMSA believes that with the additional tiers which more equitably spread costs across operators by total per operator capacity, small and large LNG operators are billed at rates more equitably than the originally proposed billing structure, with the smallest half of the operators paying 24 percent of total costs while the largest half of operators pay about 76 percent of costs. Additionally, after the design review envisioned in the law for new large export terminals is implemented, PHMSA will reevaluate the user fee approach for LNG plants, gas transmission pipelines, and hazardous [[Page 26326]] liquid pipelines and consider making appropriate modifications. Comment: APGA ``estimates that a fee of approximately 6 cents per bbl, would collect approximately $3,774,405, or 5 percent of PHMSA's current gas budget. This formula would more equitably distribute the LNG portion of PHMSA's pipeline safety program among LNG facility owners. It should be phased in at approximately 2 cents/bbl in 2015, 4 cents/bbl in 2016 and 6 cents/bbl in 2017. These would obviously have to be adjusted for any changes in PHMSA's budget. The user fee for natural gas transmission mileage should also be adjusted to take into account that LNG operators are now paying more, so transmission operators would pay less.'' MUD endorses APGA's recommendation. Response: PHMSA plans to add tiers shifting more of the financial burden to larger plants. A new 10-tier system based on per OPID total barrel capacity with new tiers implemented for smaller capacity LNG operators and new tiers for large LNG operators provides a simple method for distributing costs more proportionately by size of operator. And, by reducing the rate increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs, we more equitably distribute the LNG portion among facility owners with a 68 percent reduction in total costs compared to the initial proposed increase. Under the pure cost per barrel approach suggested by APGA, PHMSA believes that too much of the financial burden associated with a given level regulatory oversight of a plant would be shifted from small operators. Comment: BGE does not consider PHMSA's proposed 5% increase in the LNG facility user fee to be ``reasonable and justifiable'' arguing that there are minimal increases in LNG regulatory requirements since 1994 opposed to increased regulatory requirements for gas pipeline operators over the same time, while gas transmission operator user fee cost increases over that time were not on the same scale as what we are proposing for LNG cost increases. BGE also noted that the 1986 citation that LNG facilities was to account for 5% of the total regulatory program costs is no longer an appropriate ratio to utilize arguing again that between 1986 and now there are little regulatory changes as opposed to changes for the gas transmission industry at large, so PHMSA accordingly should only marginally increase LNG costs. Response: PHMSA evaluated actual annual LNG programmatic costs and determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs cover actual expenses. Accordingly, we agree with BGE that the 5 percent level of total regulatory program costs established in the 1986 notice is no longer an appropriate ratio. Comment: BGE requests PHMSA also consider the following approaches: ``If a ratio of LNG user fee to overall program costs is necessary and justifiable, consider a user fee that matches PHMSA's actual LNG regulatory expenditures and that excludes the dramatic increase for design reviews by PHMSA (likely much closer to 1% for example); retain current LNG user fee assessment values for LNG facilities which are satellite and/or peak shaving (with or without liquefaction) due to their limited operating activity, limited ability to generate revenue, and regulatory effort by PHMSA which has not increased dramatically to justify an approximately 800% user fee increase; and consider a combination assessment fee approach by applying the expanded stepped storage capacity based fee schedule with a facility type based multiplier to recognize the larger base load import/export facilities not limited to a ROR set by state public utility commissions.'' Response: In response to comments, PHMSA evaluated annual costs for LNG oversight and determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs cover PHMSA actual LNG regulatory expenditures. PHMSA will implement additional tiers that better apportion the costs to larger plants. Comment: Metropolitan Utilities District makes the same comments that APGA made about the impact to small LNG facilities, that the increase to 5% of gas program costs is not related to actual increases in LNG regulatory enforcement, and that the proposed costs for LNG peak shaving facilities, in a five-tier per barrel structure, is disproportional to LNG export facility proposed costs, supporting the APGA recommendation for a cost per barrel structure. Metropolitan Utilities District also supports the cost recovery for design review for LNG facility construction concept. Response: PHMSA evaluated annual costs for LNG oversight and determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs cover PHMSA's LNG regulatory expenditures. PHMSA will implement additional tiers that better apportion the costs to larger plants. Comment: David Wilson commented ``I object to the fact that PHMSA is seeking a User Fee increase for LNG facility operators based upon an estimated 1986 percentage of 5% and trying to suggest that the program costs should remain at that same percentage without ANY analysis of actual costs today. It requires an enormous amount of capital, economic risk and time to construct LNG storage facilities and I know that several projects are currently being planned, permitted and/or constructed based upon certain fee structure assumptions. To increase the fees for these operators over 800% over the course of three years can change the entire economic viability plan for some projects and will result in increased costs for consumers. I would ask PHMSA to review the allocation of resources for the LNG facilities and resubmit a proposal based upon those current needs.'' Response: The basis for billing LNG facilities at 5 percent of gas program costs was established in the original user fee notice. Based on the comments received, PHMSA has revisited the appropriate level and determined that 1.6 percent of gas program costs cover actual LNG expenditures and accordingly, we are not pursuing 5 percent of gas program costs. Comment: David Wilson also commented ``I would encourage PHMSA to review their program costs to reduce unnecessary programs and waste to the extent that the program costs would remain flat or be reduced over the course of the next three years as the user fee increases are nothing more than an additional tax burden for consumers disguised as a `user fee' ''. Response: Congress authorized and required use fee collection for LNG facilities and operators as stated above. PHMSA did review program costs relevant to LNG expenditures, adopting an increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs, rather than the previously proposed 5 percent of gas costs. Revised LNG User Fee Plan Based on the comments received, PHMSA has made several changes to the historical LNG user fee billing methodology. First, we have implemented an increase to 1.6 percent of gas program costs, based on current annual LNG expenditures. Secondly, the historical 5 billing tiers are expanded to 10 tiers. Instead of billing per plant, user fee bills are based on the sum of storage capacity for all plants reported by an operator. We considered implementing the cents per barrel method suggested by APGA, but determined that this methodology shifted too much burden from small operators. PHMSA has placed a document in the docket that compares the historical per plant 5 tier fee, the new per operator 10 tier fee, and the APGA proposal for a per barrel fee. PHMSA decided to bill per operator rather than per plant to reduce the burden on small operators with multiple [[Page 26327]] plants. In actual FY 2014 billing, the highest LNG user fee was paid by Atlanta Gas Light. By paying a fee for each of its four plants, the total Atlanta Gas Light LNG user fee bill exceeded the bill for any LNG import plant. Thirteen other operators with multiple plants each paid a higher LNG user fee bill than any import plant. Billing on the sum of storage capacity for an operator better apportions the costs to larger operators. PHMSA added five new billing tiers to reduce the burden on small operators. These new tiers include an ultra-low storage capacity tier to reduce the burden on operators with storage capacity less than 2,000 barrels. Another tier was added for operators with less than 50,000 barrels of storage. The previous tier structure generated the same fee for all plants over 500,000 barrels of storage, but the highest storage volume in FY 2014 billing was 5 million barrels. We adjusted the boundaries of the top two tiers and added three new tiers for operators with very high storage capacity. For example, in FY 2014, an operator with three small plants was billed a total of $3,750 for its three small plants. If PHMSA had implemented 10-tier billing per operator for FY 2014, Energy North Natural Gas Inc., would have paid 62 percent less. Under the cost per barrel approach suggested by APGA, the decrease would have been 11,670 percent. The APGA approach shifts too much of the financial burden from small operators. In FY 2014, each of the eight operators of an import plant was billed $7,500. If PHMSA had implemented 10-tier billing by operator for FY 2014, each of these eight large operators would have paid 79 percent more. Under the cost per barrel approach suggested by APGA, the percent increase would have ranged from 57 to 83 percent. The percent increase for these large plants using the new PHMSA structure is comparable to the percent increase using the APGA proposal. For FY 2015, PHMSA has implemented the 10-tier billing structure below to collect 1.6 percent of gas costs with full collection in FY 2015 billing, not over 3 years as previously proposed: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Barrel range # Operators Rate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ less than 2,000................................. 5 $2,394 2,001-10,000.................................... 10 4,787 10,001-50,000................................... 5 7,181 50,001-100,000.................................. 7 9,575 100,001-250,000................................. 6 11,487 250,001-300,000................................. 11 16,467 300,001-500,000................................. 11 19,150 500,001-700,000................................. 8 28,721 700,001-2 million............................... 12 34,468 over 2 million.................................. 7 40,212 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PHMSA continues to exempt mobile and temporary LNG plants from user fee billing. PHMSA believes that an increase to 1.6 percent of gas costs accurately reflects the allocation of PHMSA resources to LNG operators. By implementing the 10-tier approach and billing by operator instead of by plant, PHMSA has established a rate plan that is fair and equitable to both small and large operators. Since PHMSA has determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs accurately reflect LNG regulatory costs, the increase has been implemented in FY 2015 user fee billing. PHMSA has placed a document in the docket that compares the actual FY 2014 bill and the actual FY 2015 bill for each operator. The largest LNG operator is being billed $40,212.00 and the smallest is being billed $2,394.00. In the future, PHMSA will ensure that LNG user fee rates continue to remain in proper alignment with program costs. Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 60301 and 601. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2015, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. Jeffrey D. Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 2015-10614 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
![26324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices
requirement would also cover a or natural gas. It is consistent with the intrastate gas transmission pipelines (as
deepwater port intended for the export existing process previously established defined in 49 CFR part 192) and
of refined products. for the review of import applications. hazardous liquid pipelines carrying
The considerable technical, This policy acknowledges that these crude oil, refined petroleum products,
operational and environmental existing statutory and regulatory highly volatile liquids, biofuel, and
differences between import and export procedures are sufficient and carbon dioxide (as defined in 49 CFR
operations for oil or natural gas projects appropriate for the processing of export part 195) a share of the total Federal
are such that any licensed deepwater applications. pipeline safety program costs in
port facility operator or any proponent proportion to the number of miles of
Authority: The Coast Guard and Maritime
of a deepwater port that has an Transportation Act of 2012; The Deepwater pipeline for each operator. In
application in process who proposes to Port Act of 1974, as amended, 33 U.S.C. accordance with COBRA, PHMSA also
convert from import to export 1501–1524; 49 CFR 1.93. assesses user fees on LNG facilities (as
operations must submit a new license defined in 49 CFR part 193).
Dated: May 1, 2015.
application (including application fee) On July 16, 1986, the agency
and conform to all licensing By Order of the Maritime Administrator. published in the Federal Register a
requirements and regulations in effect at Thomas M. Hudson, Jr., notice for pipeline safety user fees to
such time of application. For licensed Secretary, Maritime Administration. describe the agency’s implementation of
deepwater ports, an application to [FR Doc. 2015–10619 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] the requirements set forth in the COBRA
convert from import operations to BILLING CODE 4910–81–P Act (51 FR 25782) (the user fee notice).
export operations requires, at a With respect to pipelines, the user fee
minimum: (1) Approval from DOE or notice adopted pipeline mileage as the
other approval authority to export oil or DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION fee basis. With respect to the LNG
natural gas to free trade and/or non-free facility portion of the gas program costs,
trade agreement countries; (2) a new or Pipeline and Hazardous Materials a fee basis other than mileage was
supplemental environmental impact Safety Administration needed. For these facilities, the agency
statement or environmental assessment [Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0051] decided that storage capacity was the
pursuant to NEPA that assesses the most readily measurable indicator of
environmental impacts of the proposed Pipeline Safety: Liquefied Natural Gas usage as well as allocation of agency
change in operations; and (3) a revised Facility User Fee Rate Increase resources. In order to ensure that user
operations manual that fully describes fees assessed for each type of pipeline
the proposed change in port operations. ACTION: Notice of agency action. facility have a reasonable relationship to
Only after all required application the allocation of departmental
processes are completed, and MARAD AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous resources, the user fee notice
issues a ROD or Finding Of No Materials Safety Administration, established five percent of total gas
Significant Impact (FONSI) that Department of Transportation. program costs as the appropriate level
SUMMARY: On July 3, 2014, (79 FR
explicitly addresses the nine mandatory and established billing tiers based on
criteria specified in the DWPA (33 38124) the Pipeline and Hazardous the storage capacity of LNG facilities.
U.S.C. 1503(c)), may the Maritime Materials Safety Administration In 2014, PHMSA determined that
Administrator approve, approve with (PHMSA) published a notice in this certain changes to the calculation table
conditions, or disapprove an application docket to advise all liquefied natural gas were necessary because the LNG rates
to export oil or natural gas through a facility (LNG) operators subject to had not been adjusted to reflect the
deepwater port. PHMSA user fee billing of a change in increase in gas program costs since
For deepwater ports that already have the LNG user fee rates to align these 1986. On July 3, 2014, (79 FR 38124)
a license to import oil or natural gas, if rates with the actual allocation of PHMSA issued a Federal Register
the Maritime Administrator approves an PHMSA resources to LNG program notice describing PHMSA’s planned
application to convert to export costs. PHMSA is publishing this notice approach to updating the LNG user fee
operations, the licensee must surrender to explain changes PHMSA has made to assessments. The notice described
the existing license, and the Maritime the rate plan described in the July notice PHMSA’s intention to update the rate
Administrator will issue a new license, in response to the comments received for each of the five storage capacity tiers
as outlined above, with conditions and to communicate PHMSA’s final in the table to arrive at five percent of
appropriate to all intended activities, LNG user fee plan. total gas program costs when the tiers
including, if applicable, authority to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: are added together. PHMSA stated that
engage in bidirectional oil or natural gas Blaine Keener by telephone at 202–366– it plans to implement the increase in the
import and export operations. For 0970, by email at blaine.keener@dot.gov, LNG facility obligation in three equal
applications to site, construct and or by mail at U.S. Department of increments starting in 2015 and invited
operate a new deepwater port, the Transportation, PHMSA, PHP–30, 1200 comments. Based on the comments
Maritime Administrator will issue a New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, received, PHMSA has revised its
new license with conditions appropriate DC 20590–0001. approach and is now establishing 1.6
to the applied-for activity. percent of total gas program costs as the
Background
appropriate level and has determined
Policy Analysis and Notices The Consolidated Omnibus Budget that at this lower level there is no longer
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
MARAD is publishing this policy in Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1986 a need to implement the increase over
the Federal Register to indicate how it (Pub. L. 99–272, Sec. 7005) codified at 3 years.
plans to exercise the discretionary Section 60301 of Title 49, United States SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
authority provided by the DWPA, as Code, authorizes the assessment and
amended by the CG&MT Act. This collection of user fees to fund the Summary of Comments on the July 3,
policy establishes an administrative pipeline safety activities conducted 2014 Notice
process for the review of deepwater port under Chapter 601 of Title 49. PHMSA During the 2-month response period,
applications that propose to export oil assesses each operator of interstate and PHMSA received comments on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26412/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices 26327
plants. In actual FY 2014 billing, the Barrel range # Operators Rate You may submit comments
ADDRESSES:
highest LNG user fee was paid by by any of the following methods:
Atlanta Gas Light. By paying a fee for 700,001–2 million 12 34,468 Email: Thomas.olinn@treasury.gov.
each of its four plants, the total Atlanta over 2 million ........ 7 40,212 The subject line should contain the
Gas Light LNG user fee bill exceeded the OMB number and title for which you
bill for any LNG import plant. Thirteen PHMSA continues to exempt mobile are commenting.
other operators with multiple plants and temporary LNG plants from user fee Mail: Thomas O’Linn, Office of the
each paid a higher LNG user fee bill billing. Procurement Executive, Department of
than any import plant. Billing on the PHMSA believes that an increase to the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave.
sum of storage capacity for an operator 1.6 percent of gas costs accurately NW., Metropolitan Square, Suite 6B113,
better apportions the costs to larger reflects the allocation of PHMSA Washington DC 20220.
operators. resources to LNG operators. By All responses to this notice will be
PHMSA added five new billing tiers implementing the 10-tier approach and included in the request for OMB’s
to reduce the burden on small operators. billing by operator instead of by plant, approval. All comments will also
These new tiers include an ultra-low PHMSA has established a rate plan that become a matter of public record.
storage capacity tier to reduce the is fair and equitable to both small and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
burden on operators with storage large operators. Since PHMSA has Requests for additional information or a
capacity less than 2,000 barrels. Another determined that 1.6 percent of gas costs copy of the information collection can
tier was added for operators with less accurately reflect LNG regulatory costs, be directed to the addresses provided
than 50,000 barrels of storage. The the increase has been implemented in above.
previous tier structure generated the FY 2015 user fee billing. PHMSA has
same fee for all plants over 500,000 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
placed a document in the docket that
barrels of storage, but the highest storage compares the actual FY 2014 bill and OMB Number: 1505–0081.
volume in FY 2014 billing was 5 million the actual FY 2015 bill for each Type of Review: Extension without
barrels. We adjusted the boundaries of operator. The largest LNG operator is change of a currently approved
the top two tiers and added three new being billed $40,212.00 and the smallest collection.
tiers for operators with very high storage Title: Solicitation of Proposal
is being billed $2,394.00. In the future,
capacity. Information for Award of Public
PHMSA will ensure that LNG user fee
For example, in FY 2014, an operator Contracts.
rates continue to remain in proper
with three small plants was billed a Abstract: Information being requested
alignment with program costs.
total of $3,750 for its three small plants. is used by the Government’s contracting
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 60301 and officer and other acquisition personnel,
If PHMSA had implemented 10-tier
601. including technical and legal staffs, to
billing per operator for FY 2014, Energy
North Natural Gas Inc., would have paid Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2015, evaluate offers and quotations submitted
62 percent less. Under the cost per under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. in response to a solicitation. Evaluation
barrel approach suggested by APGA, the Jeffrey D. Wiese, may include determining the adequacy
decrease would have been 11,670 Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. of the offeror’s proposed technical and
percent. The APGA approach shifts too [FR Doc. 2015–10614 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] management approach, experience,
much of the financial burden from small BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
responsibility, responsiveness, expertise
operators. of the firms submitting offers. Each
In FY 2014, each of the eight acquisition is a stand-alone action that
operators of an import plant was billed is based upon unique project
$7,500. If PHMSA had implemented 10- DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY requirements.
tier billing by operator for FY 2014, each Affected Public: Private Sector:
of these eight large operators would Proposed Collection; Comment Businesses or other for-profits.
have paid 79 percent more. Under the Request; Office of the Procurement Estimated Number of Respondents:
cost per barrel approach suggested by Executive 22,577.
APGA, the percent increase would have Estimated Number of Responses per
AGENCY: Department of Treasury, Respondent: 1.
ranged from 57 to 83 percent. The
Departmental Offices. Estimated Hours per Response: 9.
percent increase for these large plants
using the new PHMSA structure is ACTION: Notice and request for Estimated Total Annual Burden
comparable to the percent increase comments. Hours: 203,193.
using the APGA proposal. Request for Comments: Comments
SUMMARY: The Department of the submitted in response to this notice will
For FY 2015, PHMSA has
Treasury invites the general public and be summarized and included in the
implemented the 10-tier billing
other Federal agencies to comment on request for OMB approval. All
structure below to collect 1.6 percent of
an extension of an existing information comments will become a matter of
gas costs with full collection in FY 2015
collection, as required by the Paperwork public record. Comments are invited on:
billing, not over 3 years as previously
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– (a) Whether the collection of
proposed:
13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The information is necessary for the proper
Barrel range # Operators Rate Department of the Treasury, Office of performance of the functions of the
the Procurement Executive, is soliciting agency, including whether the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
less than 2,000 ..... 5 $2,394 comments concerning the Solicitation of information has practical utility; (b) the
2,001–10,000 ........ 10 4,787 Proposal Information for Award of accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
10,001–50,000 ...... 5 7,181 Public Contracts, which is scheduled to burden of the collection of information,
50,001–100,000 .... 7 9,575 expire August 31, 2015.
100,001–250,000 .. 6 11,487 including the validity of the
250,001–300,000 .. 11 16,467 DATES: Written comments must be methodology and assumptions used; (c)
300,001–500,000 .. 11 19,150 received on or before July 6, 2015 to be ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
500,001–700,000 .. 8 28,721 assured of consideration. clarity of the information to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26412/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:49:50
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:49:50
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of agency action. | |
| Contact | Blaine Keener by telephone at 202-366- 0970, by email at [email protected], or by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA, PHP-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 26324 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR