83 FR 49563 - Update to the 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 191 (October 2, 2018)

Page Range		49563-49566
FR Document		2018-21450

The Coast Guard announces the availability of the final 2016.1 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines. The Coast Guard publishes this notice on behalf of the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee (PREP 4C). The PREP 4C includes representatives from the Coast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration under the Department of Transportation, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement under the Department of the Interior.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49563-49566]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2017-0894]
RIN 1625-ZA37

Update to the 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise
Program (PREP) Guidelines

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the final 2016.1
National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines.
The Coast Guard publishes this notice on behalf of the Preparedness for
Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency
Committee (PREP 4C). The PREP 4C includes representatives from the
Coast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration under the Department of Transportation, and the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement under the Department of
the Interior.

DATES: The 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are effective on October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, as well as documents
mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type ``USCG-2017-0894'' and click ``Search.''
Then click the ``Open Docket Folder.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the 2016.1 PREP
Guidelines, call Mr. Jonathan Smith, Office of Marine Environmental
Response Policy, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-2675; Mr. Troy
Swackhammer, Office of Emergency Management, Regulations Implementation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, telephone 202-564-1966; Mr.
John Caplis, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, telephone 703-787-1364; and Mr. Eddie
Murphy, Office of Pipeline Safety, Department of Transportation,
telephone 202-366-4595.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abbreviations

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program
IMT Incident Management Team
MSEL Master Scenario Event List
PREP Preparedness for Response Exercise Program
PREP 4C PREP Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee
QI Qualified Individual
RAC Remote Assessment and Consultation
SMFF Salvage and Marine Firefighting
TTX Tabletop exercise

II. Background

On December 22, 2017, the Coast Guard, on behalf of the
Preparedness for Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination,
and Consistency Committee (PREP 4C), published for public comment a
draft update to the 2016 PREP Guidelines in the Federal Register (82 FR
60693). We referred to the draft update as the ``2016.1 PREP
Guidelines.'' On February 26, 2018, the Coast Guard published for
public comment (83 FR 8290) an economic analysis of the potential
deregulatory savings that may result from the draft update. During the
2 public comment periods, we received 11 comments. One commenter
submitted an identical comment three times. Therefore, the docket
reflects 13 submissions. All comments are posted on http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2017-0894. Below are our
responses to the public comments and a discussion of the changes made
as a result of the public comments.

III. Summary of Comments and Changes

Of the 11 comment submissions received over the 2 comment periods,
9 addressed the proposed reduction to the Remote Assessment and
Consultation (RAC) drill frequency. Four of these submissions were
generally

[[Page 49564]]

unsupportive of the proposed reduction to the RAC drill frequency,
while five were generally supportive. None of the comments regarding
the frequency of RAC drills were submitted by plan holders. With the
exception of one, all comments in support of reducing the frequency of
RAC drills were from salvage providers. One salvage provider opposed
reducing the frequency of RAC drills. The other commenters who opposed
reducing the frequency of RAC drills were from individual citizens and
citizens' advisory councils who felt that reducing RAC drill frequency
from one drill per year to once every 3 years is inadequate for
purposes of ensuring the salvage providers fully recognize the scope of
area for which they are responsible to cover. Three comment submissions
addressed concerns regarding the language for Incident Management Team
(IMT) exercises for offshore facilities regulated by the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), which include (1) the
members of an IMT which must be exercised, (2) the involvement of
participating IMT members in the design phase of the exercise, (3) the
exercising of source control positions, and (4) the requirement that
IMT exercises must be a functional exercise rather than a tabletop
exercise for offshore facilities as outlined in section 6.2 and
appendix B of the PREP Guidelines. One comment submission addressed
concerns over response timelines for facilities regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in remote locations.

Coast Guard Response to Industry Comments

One commenter noted the Coast Guard ``committed waste by conducting
a deregulatory savings analysis for guidelines that are voluntary to
regulated industry and for which, the Coast Guard did not identify any
costs or potential cost savings associated with the Federal
Government.'' The commenter also noted the annualized cost savings
analysis to the maritime industry is a benefit to private industry that
apparently outweighs the Coast Guard's own policy to ensure adequate
spill response planning and preparedness. Finally, the commenter noted,
``the potential costs and benefits were originally determined to be
found `not significant.' ''
Response: As mentioned above, the Coast Guard conducted a
deregulatory savings analysis for the population affected by a
reduction in RAC drills, which are plan holders that would be required
to conduct RAC drills for vessels listed in their respective response
plans. As stated in our deregulatory savings analysis, we did not
identify any cost savings associated with the Federal Government. We
disagree with the commenter that the ``benefit to private industry
apparently outweighs the Coast Guard's own policy to ensure adequate
spill response planning and preparedness . . .'' First and foremost, we
do not believe plan holders' response preparedness will degrade by
reducing RAC drills. Our intent in reducing the frequency of RAC drills
is to establish adequate spill response planning and preparedness
without imposing an undue burden on plan holders. Finally, we are
unsure what the commenter is referring to when the commenter states,
``the potential costs and benefits [. . .] were originally determined
to be found not significant.'' The Coast Guard did not make a prior
statement regarding the significance or non-significance of the
potential costs and benefits in either the deregulatory savings
analysis or the notice of availability, in which we invited the public
to comment on the deregulatory savings analysis.
Reduction of RAC drill frequency: As mentioned above, 9 of the 11
comment submissions concerned the proposed Coast Guard change that
reduced the RAC drill frequency from one annual RAC drill per vessel to
one triennial RAC drill per plan holder, noting that a single plan
holder may have responsibility over a fleet of vessels and not just one
vessel. The supportive comments cited the financial and administrative
burden of the current RAC drill frequency, and one commenter noted that
the proposed reduction in frequency is more reasonable and would not
degrade response preparedness. The opposing comments noted that the
reduction in RAC drills would diminish vessel master or crew
familiarity with Salvage and Marine Firefighting (SMFF) emergency
protocols, and would degrade overall preparedness. Additionally, the
unsupportive comments cited the importance of keeping RAC drills as
unique, vessel-centric drills that emphasize interaction between vessel
crew and salvage provider, versus plan holder-centric drills.
Additionally, commenters that opposed the reduction in RAC drills were
concerned that the proposed reduction in drill frequency would diminish
the SMFF provider's ability to accurately assess a condition that may
be compromising to the safety of a vessel and that, in turn, could
impair the effectiveness of a response.
Response: The purpose of a required RAC drill is to exercise the
procedure for a RAC performed between the SMFF provider and the vessel
owner or operator. We expect these drills to be more than just
notifications and, instead, seek to encourage substantive interaction
between the vessel master and crew and the SMFF provider. The Coast
Guard believes the benefit of exercising one vessel in a plan will
extend to all vessels in the plan.
Randomized selection of a vessel within a fleet for RAC drill
purposes: One commenter noted the need to add language specifying
random selection of a vessel within a fleet for purposes of performing
a RAC drill.
Response: Under the final 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, the plan holder
has discretion for vessel selection. Nevertheless, this suggestion has
merit and we urge plan holders to conduct random selections when
determining which vessel, within a fleet of vessels, performs a RAC
drill. Moreover, the Coast Guard will consider adding a ``random
selection'' requirement in future revisions to the PREP Guidelines.
Recordkeeping for RAC drills: One commenter noted some confusing
language in the guidelines regarding whether both the Qualified
Individual (QI) and the vessel are required to retain records.
Response: Coast Guard regulations require the vessel owner to
maintain records for training and exercises. Pursuant to 33 CFR
155.1060(f), a vessel owner or operator must ensure that exercise
records are maintained and available to the Coast Guard for 3 years
following the completion of the exercise. Under existing PREP
guidelines, the vessel owner or operator must maintain RAC exercise
records for manned vessels in a minimum of two locations, on the vessel
and with one of the following: The U.S. location of the QI, the vessel
owner or operator, the IMT, or the SMFF provider. The Vessel Response
Plan must state the location of the records. This requirement remains
unchanged in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. Currently, PREP guidelines
require RAC exercise records for unmanned tank barges to be kept either
on board the barge or with the Vessel Response Plan for the barge. This
requirement remains unchanged in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. However,
the Coast Guard may consider changing the required location of RAC
exercise records for both manned and unmanned vessels now that the
requirement applies to plan holders, and may include a fleet of vessels
covered by a plan. Until that time, we encourage plan holders to
maintain RAC exercise records on board each vessel on the plan. This
will assist the Coast Guard

[[Page 49565]]

when it verifies compliance with exercise requirements during vessel
inspections.

Environmental Protection Agency-Regulated Facilities Comments

Alternative timelines for extreme situations: One commenter
suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allow regional
administrators to develop alternative timelines for ``extreme
situations'' when it is unfeasible to secure oil spill recovery
equipment on scene within response timelines specified in 40 CFR part
112 because of the geographic remoteness of some facilities.
Response: The EPA's Facility Response Plan regulation in 40 CFR
part 112, subpart D, does not include a provision to request alternate
timeframes outlined in appendix E for responses to small, medium, and
worst-case discharge planning levels. However, the EPA encourages plan
holders to evaluate the specific response needs (both equipment and
personnel considerations) for their facilities, which may include
partnerships with companies operating in the same oil fields.

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement-Regulated Offshore
Facilities Comments

Participation of the Incident Commander during an IMT exercise: One
commenter stated that the proposed change in section 6.2 of the
guidelines, which involves including the ``command and general staffs,
at a minimum,'' would require the participation by every member of the
IMT in each IMT exercise. The commenter recommended changing the
language to state that the ``incident command, as well as the command
and general staff, may be exercised with appropriate objectives during
an IMT exercise.''
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter that not all members of
the entire IMT must participate in each IMT exercise, but rather
participation by the command and general staff in any particular IMT
exercise should be driven by the objectives being tested. BSEE has
adjusted the language to clarify this point in section 6.2 of the
2016.1 PREP Guidelines. The primary purpose for adjusting the language
in section 6.2 is to clarify that the participating incident commander
is considered part of the IMT that is being exercised and, as such,
should not be given access to the script and Master Scenario Event List
(MSEL) prior to the start of the exercise.
Including source control positions as exercise participants: One
commenter stated that some IMT exercises might have source control
objectives that are minimal in nature, such as only activating a source
control provider, and would not require further participation of source
control positions. This commenter suggested clarifying the language to
state that source control positions should participate in an IMT
exercise ``as appropriate.''
Response: BSEE agrees that source control positions do not always
need to be exercised for every scenario that has a source control
component. The language in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines states that a
source control branch should be exercised when source control
objectives are a significant element of the scenario. BSEE believes the
existing language leads to the same outcome that the commenter wants,
and that the existing language provides greater clarity regarding the
agency's intent regarding this matter. As such, the existing language
will remain unchanged.
Ensuring IMT exercise participants do not have prior knowledge of
the exercise scenario: Three commenters commented on this issue. The
first commenter stated that while there may be times when portions of
the exercise specifics may have to be divulged to certain IMT members
that will be playing in the exercise, those instances should be kept to
a minimum. This commenter also noted that having advance knowledge of
the scenario allows the players to develop tactics and strategies prior
to the exercise. However, the commenter felt that developing solutions
collaboratively between industry, government agencies, and other
stakeholders during exercises provides a more valuable overall learning
experience for participants.
Response: BSEE agrees.
The second commenter stated that the exercise scenario script is
typically general in nature and does not greatly affect how the
response is organized or conducted. The commenter also recommended
amending language in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines to refer to the MSEL
instead of the scenario script.
Response: BSEE considers the MSEL to be a critical supporting
document to the exercise scenario script, and agrees with the commenter
that IMT members who participate in the exercise should not have prior
access to or knowledge of the MSEL. BSEE has amended the language in
section 6.2 of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines to include a reference to the
MSEL in addition to the scenario script.
The third commenter agreed that preventing IMT participants from
having prior access to the information on the exercise scenario results
in a better test of preparedness. However, this commenter requested
that BSEE clarify that these exercises test the overall preparedness of
the company, rather than evaluate each IMT member's performance.
Response: BSEE believes that IMT exercises should test both the
overall preparedness of the company and the individual preparedness of
each member of the IMT, as appropriate, based on the exercise
objectives. The performance of IMT members during an exercise is an
important indicator of the plan holder's overall preparedness to
respond to an actual incident, and should be evaluated. BSEE does not
agree with, and has not adopted, the change requested by the commenter.
Exercising source control and subsea containment capabilities: One
commenter stated that source control operations are the weak link in a
major oil spill response and source control equipment should be
exercised in the same way as any other spill response equipment,
including offshore deployments.
Response: While BSEE agrees that source control is a critical part
of any response, BSEE disagrees that source control equipment should be
exercised in the same manner as all other spill response equipment.
While this comment is outside of the scope of the changes proposed in
the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, this subject was addressed at length in the
preamble of the Federal Register notice that published the final 2016
PREP Guidelines (81 FR 21362). As outlined in Notices to Lessees 2010-
N10 and 2012-N06,\1\ 30 CFR part 254 requires a plan holder to describe
a Worst Case Discharge in its plan, and then exercise how it will
respond to the discharge, including identifying any equipment necessary
to contain and recover the discharge. BSEE interprets this regulatory
language to be inclusive of any resources necessary to contain and
secure the source of a potential or actual discharge, which could
include the use of well control capabilities such as capping stacks,
cap and flow equipment, subsea containment devices, and other
supporting equipment. As the current regulations in 30 CFR part 254 do
not establish a required interval for the deployment of this type of
equipment, the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines cannot provide any additional
guidance

[[Page 49566]]

on a specific exercise frequency requirement at this time. In the
absence of any defined scope and frequency interval in the regulations,
BSEE will continue to conduct deployments of source control
capabilities at the discretion of the BSEE Oil Spill Preparedness
Division Chief, in consultation with the appropriate BSEE Regional
Director, as needed in order to assess and verify the overall
preparedness of a plan holder, or group of plan holders, to operate in
an Outer Continental Shelf region. As the scope and cost of such
deployment exercises can be quite large, BSEE does not intend to
require plan holders or providers of source control, subsea
containment, and supporting equipment to conduct deployment exercises
at the same semi-annual or annual frequency as required for other spill
response equipment. BSEE purposely added section 6.5 to the 2016.1 PREP
Guidelines to provide specific interim guidance for exercising source
control and subsea containment equipment. BSEE will work to clarify
expectations and requirements in the regulations in a future
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Notices to Lessees can be found on BSEE's website at https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-regulations/guidance/notice-to-lessees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Nature of IMT exercises for offshore facilities: One commenter
stated that the title of section 6.2 of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines
should be changed from ``Functional Exercise (FE): Incident Management
Team Exercise--Offshore Facility'' to ``Tabletop Exercise (TTX):
Incident Management Team Exercise--Offshore Facility'' to better align
with language in 30 CFR part 254.
Response: While this comment is outside of the scope of the
proposed changes made in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, the BSEE feels it
is important to provide clarification on this important issue. When the
PREP 4C published the 2016 PREP Guidelines, it updated many terms and
concepts to align with developments that have occurred in the National
Response System since the previous version was published in 2002. This
included adopting the term ``Incident Management Team,'' as opposed to
``Spill Management Team,'' as well as incorporating many elements of
today's exercise typology and terminology as established by the
Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). As such, the
2016 PREP Guidelines changed ``SMT Tabletop Exercises (TTX)'' to ``IMT
Exercise.'' This language was purposely adopted to allow each PREP
agency the flexibility to determine the type and scope of the IMT
exercise. As defined in HSEEP and the 2016 PREP Guidelines, a TTX is a
type of discussion-based exercise intended to generate discussion of
various issues regarding a hypothetical, simulated emergency. The 2016
PREP Guidelines also state that discussion-based exercises focus on
strategic, policy-oriented issues, with facilitators or presenters
usually leading the discussion to keep participants on track to meet
exercise objectives. In addition, the 2016 PREP Guidelines state that
functional exercises focus on exercising plans, policies, and
procedures, and staff members are involved in management, direction,
command, and control functions. In functional exercises, events are
projected through an exercise scenario with event updates that drive
activity at the management level, and are conducted in a realistic,
real-time environment, even though the movement of personnel and
equipment is usually simulated. The BSEE believes that functional
exercises, as currently defined by the terminology under HSEEP and the
2016 PREP Guidelines, more closely capture the stated intent of 30 CFR
254.42(b)(1), which provides that ``the exercise must test the spill
management team's organization, communication and decision-making in
managing a response.'' Therefore, the BSEE will retain the ``Functional
Exercise (FE)'' language in the existing title for section 6.2 of the
2016.1 PREP Guidelines. However, in a future regulatory update, the
BSEE will amend the exercise terminology in 30 CFR 254.42(b)(1) to
reflect that an annual IMT functional exercise is required to properly
align the CFR terminology with today's HSEEP and the PREP guidance. For
additional background information on the adoption of HSEEP exercise
terminology for the 2016 PREP Guidelines, see 81 FR 21362.

IV. Cost Savings Analysis

Since our affected population and projected cost estimates have
remained the same from when we published the potential deregulatory
savings analysis in February 2018, we have retained the projected cost-
saving estimates for this notice, which we present below. As stated in
the aforementioned economic analysis, which is available in the public
docket, we estimate the net cost savings to the U.S. maritime industry
to be $1,084,671 annually ($1,177,975 for drills under prior PREP
Guidelines--$93,304 for drills under new PREP Guidelines),
undiscounted. We estimate the discounted net cost savings to the U.S.
maritime industry over a 10-year period of analysis to be between $7.6
million and $9.3 million at 7- and 3-percent discount rates,
respectively. The Coast Guard did not identify any costs or potential
cost savings associated with the Federal government as a result of the
changes in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.

V. Public Availability of 2016.1 PREP Guidelines

The PREP 4C has finalized the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, which are now
publicly available. The Coast Guard is releasing the 2016.1 PREP
Guidelines on behalf of the PREP 4C.
In addition to the docket, the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are available
at https://homeportr.uscg.mil/missions/incident-management-and-preparedness/contingency-exercises/port-level-exercises/port-level-exercises-general-information.

Dated: September 27, 2018.
K. M. Sligh,
Acting Chief, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-21450 Filed 10-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

49564 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 2018 / Notices

unsupportive of the proposed reduction response plans. As stated in our for a RAC performed between the SMFF
to the RAC drill frequency, while five deregulatory savings analysis, we did provider and the vessel owner or
were generally supportive. None of the not identify any cost savings associated operator. We expect these drills to be
comments regarding the frequency of with the Federal Government. We more than just notifications and,
RAC drills were submitted by plan disagree with the commenter that the instead, seek to encourage substantive
holders. With the exception of one, all ‘‘benefit to private industry apparently interaction between the vessel master
comments in support of reducing the outweighs the Coast Guard’s own policy and crew and the SMFF provider. The
frequency of RAC drills were from to ensure adequate spill response Coast Guard believes the benefit of
salvage providers. One salvage provider planning and preparedness . . .’’ First exercising one vessel in a plan will
opposed reducing the frequency of RAC and foremost, we do not believe plan extend to all vessels in the plan.
drills. The other commenters who holders’ response preparedness will Randomized selection of a vessel
opposed reducing the frequency of RAC degrade by reducing RAC drills. Our within a fleet for RAC drill purposes:
drills were from individual citizens and intent in reducing the frequency of RAC One commenter noted the need to add
citizens’ advisory councils who felt that drills is to establish adequate spill language specifying random selection of
reducing RAC drill frequency from one response planning and preparedness a vessel within a fleet for purposes of
drill per year to once every 3 years is without imposing an undue burden on performing a RAC drill.
inadequate for purposes of ensuring the plan holders. Finally, we are unsure Response: Under the final 2016.1
salvage providers fully recognize the what the commenter is referring to PREP Guidelines, the plan holder has
scope of area for which they are when the commenter states, ‘‘the discretion for vessel selection.
responsible to cover. Three comment potential costs and benefits [. . .] were Nevertheless, this suggestion has merit
submissions addressed concerns originally determined to be found not and we urge plan holders to conduct
regarding the language for Incident significant.’’ The Coast Guard did not random selections when determining
Management Team (IMT) exercises for make a prior statement regarding the which vessel, within a fleet of vessels,
offshore facilities regulated by the significance or non-significance of the performs a RAC drill. Moreover, the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental potential costs and benefits in either the Coast Guard will consider adding a
Enforcement (BSEE), which include (1) deregulatory savings analysis or the ‘‘random selection’’ requirement in
the members of an IMT which must be notice of availability, in which we future revisions to the PREP Guidelines.
exercised, (2) the involvement of invited the public to comment on the Recordkeeping for RAC drills: One
participating IMT members in the deregulatory savings analysis. commenter noted some confusing
design phase of the exercise, (3) the Reduction of RAC drill frequency: As language in the guidelines regarding
exercising of source control positions, mentioned above, 9 of the 11 comment whether both the Qualified Individual
and (4) the requirement that IMT submissions concerned the proposed (QI) and the vessel are required to retain
exercises must be a functional exercise Coast Guard change that reduced the records.
rather than a tabletop exercise for RAC drill frequency from one annual Response: Coast Guard regulations
offshore facilities as outlined in section RAC drill per vessel to one triennial require the vessel owner to maintain
6.2 and appendix B of the PREP RAC drill per plan holder, noting that a records for training and exercises.
Guidelines. One comment submission single plan holder may have Pursuant to 33 CFR 155.1060(f), a vessel
addressed concerns over response responsibility over a fleet of vessels and owner or operator must ensure that
timelines for facilities regulated by the not just one vessel. The supportive exercise records are maintained and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments cited the financial and available to the Coast Guard for 3 years
in remote locations. administrative burden of the current following the completion of the
RAC drill frequency, and one exercise. Under existing PREP
Coast Guard Response to Industry commenter noted that the proposed guidelines, the vessel owner or operator
Comments reduction in frequency is more must maintain RAC exercise records for
One commenter noted the Coast reasonable and would not degrade manned vessels in a minimum of two
Guard ‘‘committed waste by conducting response preparedness. The opposing locations, on the vessel and with one of
a deregulatory savings analysis for comments noted that the reduction in the following: The U.S. location of the
guidelines that are voluntary to RAC drills would diminish vessel QI, the vessel owner or operator, the
regulated industry and for which, the master or crew familiarity with Salvage IMT, or the SMFF provider. The Vessel
Coast Guard did not identify any costs and Marine Firefighting (SMFF) Response Plan must state the location of
or potential cost savings associated with emergency protocols, and would the records. This requirement remains
the Federal Government.’’ The degrade overall preparedness. unchanged in the 2016.1 PREP
commenter also noted the annualized Additionally, the unsupportive Guidelines. Currently, PREP guidelines
cost savings analysis to the maritime comments cited the importance of require RAC exercise records for
industry is a benefit to private industry keeping RAC drills as unique, vessel- unmanned tank barges to be kept either
that apparently outweighs the Coast centric drills that emphasize interaction on board the barge or with the Vessel
Guard’s own policy to ensure adequate between vessel crew and salvage Response Plan for the barge. This
spill response planning and provider, versus plan holder-centric requirement remains unchanged in the
preparedness. Finally, the commenter drills. Additionally, commenters that 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. However, the
noted, ‘‘the potential costs and benefits opposed the reduction in RAC drills Coast Guard may consider changing the
were originally determined to be found were concerned that the proposed required location of RAC exercise
‘not significant.’ ’’ reduction in drill frequency would records for both manned and unmanned
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

Response: As mentioned above, the diminish the SMFF provider’s ability to vessels now that the requirement
Coast Guard conducted a deregulatory accurately assess a condition that may applies to plan holders, and may
savings analysis for the population be compromising to the safety of a include a fleet of vessels covered by a
affected by a reduction in RAC drills, vessel and that, in turn, could impair plan. Until that time, we encourage plan
which are plan holders that would be the effectiveness of a response. holders to maintain RAC exercise
required to conduct RAC drills for Response: The purpose of a required records on board each vessel on the
vessels listed in their respective RAC drill is to exercise the procedure plan. This will assist the Coast Guard

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM 02OCN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 2018 / Notices 49565

when it verifies compliance with Including source control positions as The third commenter agreed that
exercise requirements during vessel exercise participants: One commenter preventing IMT participants from
inspections. stated that some IMT exercises might having prior access to the information
have source control objectives that are on the exercise scenario results in a
Environmental Protection Agency- better test of preparedness. However,
minimal in nature, such as only
Regulated Facilities Comments this commenter requested that BSEE
activating a source control provider, and
Alternative timelines for extreme would not require further participation clarify that these exercises test the
situations: One commenter suggested of source control positions. This overall preparedness of the company,
that the Environmental Protection commenter suggested clarifying the rather than evaluate each IMT member’s
Agency (EPA) allow regional language to state that source control performance.
administrators to develop alternative positions should participate in an IMT Response: BSEE believes that IMT
timelines for ‘‘extreme situations’’ when exercise ‘‘as appropriate.’’ exercises should test both the overall
it is unfeasible to secure oil spill Response: BSEE agrees that source preparedness of the company and the
recovery equipment on scene within control positions do not always need to individual preparedness of each
response timelines specified in 40 CFR be exercised for every scenario that has member of the IMT, as appropriate,
part 112 because of the geographic a source control component. The based on the exercise objectives. The
remoteness of some facilities. language in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines performance of IMT members during an
Response: The EPA’s Facility states that a source control branch exercise is an important indicator of the
Response Plan regulation in 40 CFR part should be exercised when source plan holder’s overall preparedness to
112, subpart D, does not include a control objectives are a significant respond to an actual incident, and
provision to request alternate element of the scenario. BSEE believes should be evaluated. BSEE does not
timeframes outlined in appendix E for the existing language leads to the same agree with, and has not adopted, the
responses to small, medium, and worst- outcome that the commenter wants, and change requested by the commenter.
case discharge planning levels. that the existing language provides Exercising source control and subsea
However, the EPA encourages plan greater clarity regarding the agency’s containment capabilities: One
holders to evaluate the specific response intent regarding this matter. As such, commenter stated that source control
needs (both equipment and personnel the existing language will remain operations are the weak link in a major
considerations) for their facilities, unchanged. oil spill response and source control
which may include partnerships with Ensuring IMT exercise participants do equipment should be exercised in the
companies operating in the same oil not have prior knowledge of the exercise same way as any other spill response
fields. scenario: Three commenters commented equipment, including offshore
on this issue. The first commenter stated deployments.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Response: While BSEE agrees that
that while there may be times when
Enforcement-Regulated Offshore source control is a critical part of any
portions of the exercise specifics may
Facilities Comments response, BSEE disagrees that source
have to be divulged to certain IMT
members that will be playing in the control equipment should be exercised
Participation of the Incident
exercise, those instances should be kept in the same manner as all other spill
Commander during an IMT exercise:
to a minimum. This commenter also response equipment. While this
One commenter stated that the proposed
noted that having advance knowledge of comment is outside of the scope of the
change in section 6.2 of the guidelines,
the scenario allows the players to changes proposed in the 2016.1 PREP
which involves including the
develop tactics and strategies prior to Guidelines, this subject was addressed
‘‘command and general staffs, at a
the exercise. However, the commenter at length in the preamble of the Federal
minimum,’’ would require the
felt that developing solutions Register notice that published the final
participation by every member of the
collaboratively between industry, 2016 PREP Guidelines (81 FR 21362).
IMT in each IMT exercise. The
government agencies, and other As outlined in Notices to Lessees 2010–
commenter recommended changing the
stakeholders during exercises provides a N10 and 2012–N06,1 30 CFR part 254
language to state that the ‘‘incident
command, as well as the command and more valuable overall learning requires a plan holder to describe a
general staff, may be exercised with experience for participants. Worst Case Discharge in its plan, and
appropriate objectives during an IMT then exercise how it will respond to the
Response: BSEE agrees.
exercise.’’ discharge, including identifying any
The second commenter stated that the
equipment necessary to contain and
Response: BSEE agrees with the exercise scenario script is typically
recover the discharge. BSEE interprets
commenter that not all members of the general in nature and does not greatly
this regulatory language to be inclusive
entire IMT must participate in each IMT affect how the response is organized or
of any resources necessary to contain
exercise, but rather participation by the conducted. The commenter also
and secure the source of a potential or
command and general staff in any recommended amending language in the
actual discharge, which could include
particular IMT exercise should be 2016.1 PREP Guidelines to refer to the
the use of well control capabilities such
driven by the objectives being tested. MSEL instead of the scenario script.
as capping stacks, cap and flow
BSEE has adjusted the language to Response: BSEE considers the MSEL
equipment, subsea containment devices,
clarify this point in section 6.2 of the to be a critical supporting document to
and other supporting equipment. As the
2016.1 PREP Guidelines. The primary the exercise scenario script, and agrees
current regulations in 30 CFR part 254
purpose for adjusting the language in with the commenter that IMT members
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

do not establish a required interval for
section 6.2 is to clarify that the who participate in the exercise should
the deployment of this type of
participating incident commander is not have prior access to or knowledge of
equipment, the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines
considered part of the IMT that is being the MSEL. BSEE has amended the
cannot provide any additional guidance
exercised and, as such, should not be language in section 6.2 of the 2016.1
given access to the script and Master PREP Guidelines to include a reference 1 Notices to Lessees can be found on BSEE’s
Scenario Event List (MSEL) prior to the to the MSEL in addition to the scenario website at https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-
start of the exercise. script. regulations/guidance/notice-to-lessees.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM 02OCN1

49566 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 2018 / Notices

on a specific exercise frequency simulated emergency. The 2016 PREP V. Public Availability of 2016.1 PREP
requirement at this time. In the absence Guidelines also state that discussion- Guidelines
of any defined scope and frequency based exercises focus on strategic, The PREP 4C has finalized the 2016.1
interval in the regulations, BSEE will policy-oriented issues, with facilitators PREP Guidelines, which are now
continue to conduct deployments of or presenters usually leading the publicly available. The Coast Guard is
source control capabilities at the discussion to keep participants on track releasing the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines on
discretion of the BSEE Oil Spill to meet exercise objectives. In addition, behalf of the PREP 4C.
Preparedness Division Chief, in the 2016 PREP Guidelines state that In addition to the docket, the 2016.1
consultation with the appropriate BSEE functional exercises focus on exercising PREP Guidelines are available at https://
Regional Director, as needed in order to plans, policies, and procedures, and homeportr.uscg.mil/missions/incident-
assess and verify the overall staff members are involved in management-and-preparedness/
preparedness of a plan holder, or group management, direction, command, and contingency-exercises/port-level-
of plan holders, to operate in an Outer control functions. In functional exercises/port-level-exercises-general-
Continental Shelf region. As the scope exercises, events are projected through information.
and cost of such deployment exercises an exercise scenario with event updates
Dated: September 27, 2018.
can be quite large, BSEE does not intend that drive activity at the management
to require plan holders or providers of level, and are conducted in a realistic, K. M. Sligh,
source control, subsea containment, and real-time environment, even though the Acting Chief, Office of Marine Environmental
supporting equipment to conduct movement of personnel and equipment Response Policy.
deployment exercises at the same semi- is usually simulated. The BSEE believes [FR Doc. 2018–21450 Filed 10–1–18; 8:45 am]
annual or annual frequency as required that functional exercises, as currently BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
for other spill response equipment. defined by the terminology under
BSEE purposely added section 6.5 to the HSEEP and the 2016 PREP Guidelines,
2016.1 PREP Guidelines to provide more closely capture the stated intent of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
specific interim guidance for exercising 30 CFR 254.42(b)(1), which provides SECURITY
source control and subsea containment that ‘‘the exercise must test the spill
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
equipment. BSEE will work to clarify management team’s organization,
expectations and requirements in the communication and decision-making in [1651–0018]
regulations in a future rulemaking. managing a response.’’ Therefore, the
The Nature of IMT exercises for BSEE will retain the ‘‘Functional Agency Information Collection
offshore facilities: One commenter Exercise (FE)’’ language in the existing Activities: Ship’s Store Declaration
stated that the title of section 6.2 of the title for section 6.2 of the 2016.1 PREP AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border
2016.1 PREP Guidelines should be Guidelines. However, in a future Protection (CBP), Department of
changed from ‘‘Functional Exercise (FE): regulatory update, the BSEE will amend Homeland Security.
Incident Management Team Exercise— the exercise terminology in 30 CFR
ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for
Offshore Facility’’ to ‘‘Tabletop Exercise 254.42(b)(1) to reflect that an annual
(TTX): Incident Management Team comments; Extension of an existing
IMT functional exercise is required to
Exercise—Offshore Facility’’ to better collection of information.
properly align the CFR terminology with
align with language in 30 CFR part 254. today’s HSEEP and the PREP guidance. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland
Response: While this comment is For additional background information Security, U.S. Customs and Border
outside of the scope of the proposed on the adoption of HSEEP exercise Protection will be submitting the
changes made in the 2016.1 PREP terminology for the 2016 PREP following information collection request
Guidelines, the BSEE feels it is Guidelines, see 81 FR 21362. to the Office of Management and Budget
important to provide clarification on (OMB) for review and approval in
this important issue. When the PREP 4C IV. Cost Savings Analysis
accordance with the Paperwork
published the 2016 PREP Guidelines, it Since our affected population and Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The
updated many terms and concepts to projected cost estimates have remained information collection is published in
align with developments that have the same from when we published the the Federal Register to obtain comments
occurred in the National Response potential deregulatory savings analysis from the public and affected agencies.
System since the previous version was in February 2018, we have retained the Comments are encouraged and will be
published in 2002. This included projected cost-saving estimates for this accepted no later than November 1,
adopting the term ‘‘Incident notice, which we present below. As 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Management Team,’’ as opposed to stated in the aforementioned economic
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
‘‘Spill Management Team,’’ as well as analysis, which is available in the
incorporating many elements of today’s public docket, we estimate the net cost invited to submit written comments on
exercise typology and terminology as savings to the U.S. maritime industry to this proposed information collection to
established by the Homeland Security be $1,084,671 annually ($1,177,975 for the Office of Information and Regulatory
Exercise and Evaluation Program drills under prior PREP Guidelines— Affairs, Office of Management and
(HSEEP). As such, the 2016 PREP $93,304 for drills under new PREP Budget. Comments should be addressed
Guidelines changed ‘‘SMT Tabletop Guidelines), undiscounted. We estimate to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs
Exercises (TTX)’’ to ‘‘IMT Exercise.’’ the discounted net cost savings to the and Border Protection, Department of
This language was purposely adopted to U.S. maritime industry over a 10-year Homeland Security, and sent via
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

allow each PREP agency the flexibility period of analysis to be between $7.6 electronic mail to dhsdeskofficer@
to determine the type and scope of the million and $9.3 million at 7- and 3- omb.eop.gov.
IMT exercise. As defined in HSEEP and percent discount rates, respectively. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the 2016 PREP Guidelines, a TTX is a Coast Guard did not identify any costs Requests for additional PRA information
type of discussion-based exercise or potential cost savings associated with should be directed to Seth Renkema,
intended to generate discussion of the Federal government as a result of the Chief, Economic Impact Analysis
various issues regarding a hypothetical, changes in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. Branch, U.S. Customs and Border

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 Oct 01, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM 02OCN1

Document Created: 2018-10-02 01:19:44
Document Modified: 2018-10-02 01:19:44

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 availability of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.
Dates		The 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are effective on October 1, 2018.
Contact		For information about the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, call Mr. Jonathan Smith, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-2675; Mr. Troy Swackhammer, Office of Emergency Management, Regulations Implementation Division, Environmental Protection Agency, telephone 202-564-1966; Mr. John Caplis, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, telephone 703-787-1364; and Mr. Eddie Murphy, Office of Pipeline Safety, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-4595.
FR Citation		83 FR 49563
RIN Number		1625-ZA37

83 FR 49563 - Update to the 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 191 (October 2, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard