[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19159-19162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06611]
[[Page 19159]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG-2022-0702]
Request for Information on Coast Guard Vessel Response Plan and
Maritime Oil-Spill Response Plan Advisory Group (MORPAG)
Recommendations
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard seeks input from the public on the
Maritime Oil-spill Response Plan Advisory Group recommendations for
changes to the Coast Guard's Vessel Response Plan program and policies.
These recommendations were provided in response to an audit from the
U.S. Government Accountability Office. This information will support
the Coast Guard's mission in marine environmental protection from oil
spills.
DATES: Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June
28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using the Federal Decision Making
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation
and Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for further instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Adriana Gaenzle, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone 202-372-1226, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Comments
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
understanding vessel oil spill response capabilities and improving the
Coast Guard's role regarding such review processes. The Coast Guard
will consider all information, comments, and material received during
the comment period. If you submit a comment, please include the docket
number for this request for information, indicate the specific section
of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason
for each suggestion or recommendation.
Methods for Submitting Comments
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision
Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to
www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0702 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material
cannot be submitted using www.regulations.gov, contact the person in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions. Public comments will be in our online docket at
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions, provided on its Frequently Asked Questions page. We
review all comments received, but we will only post comments that
address the topic of this request for information. We may choose not to
post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
The Coast Guard will not issue a separate response to the comments
received. We will carefully consider all comments and may use them to
form recommendations to Congress. The Coast Guard may also introduce
regulatory changes and update policy related to this topic. If the
Coast Guard were to undertake any regulatory or policy changes as a
result of comments received, that change would be separately announced
in the Federal Register.
Personal Information
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in
response to this document, see the Department of Homeland Security's
(DHS) eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11,
2020).
II. Abbreviations
APC Alternative Planning Criteria
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CGHQ Coast Guard Headquarters
CG-MER Coast Guard Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy
CG&MT U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation
COTP Captain of the Port
CST U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
DRAT District Response Advisory Teams
FOSC Federal On Scene Coordinator
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
MORPAG Maritime Oil-spill Response Plan Advisory Group
NCC National Command Center
NPC National Planning Criteria
NSFCC National Strike Force Coordination Center
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
OSRO Oil Spill Removal Organization
PAV Preparedness Assessment Verification
POAM Plan of Action and Milestones
QRC Quick Response Card
RFI Request for Information
RRI Response Resource Inventory
SMFF Salvage and Marine Firefighting
VRP Vessel Response Plan
III. Purpose
The Coast Guard is issuing this request for information to solicit
information that may help improve Vessel Response Plan (VRP) Program
administration. The Maritime Oil-spill Response Plan Advisory Group
(MORPAG) has completed its analysis of the VRP program and recommended
improvements in the following program areas for consideration: Oil
Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) Classification, Equivalence,
Enforcing National Planning Criteria (NPC) Compliance, Resource
Availability, Alternative Planning Criteria (APC) Administrators,
Build-Out, Tools, and Staffing.
The Coast Guard will use the public comments received in response
to this request for information to better understand vessel oil spill
response capabilities, enhance plan review processes, and improve the
VRP program overall.
IV. Background
Coast Guard VRP Program
The Coast Guard serves as the lead federal agency responsible for
preparedness and response to oil discharges and hazardous substance
releases in the Coastal Zone. The Coast Guard VRP Program works to
ensure that vessels operating in waters of the U.S. comply with all oil
spill response, salvage, and marine firefighting regulations, and have
plans in place to respond to a potential incident. The requirement to
have a VRP applies to tank vessels that carry, or are designed to
carry, oil in bulk, and to certain non-tank vessels operating in waters
of the U.S.
A variety of entities can be involved in writing VRPs, including
vessel owners or operators (known as plan holders) or others they may
hire to develop the plan on their behalf. Development of the plans
require the use of National Planning Criteria to ensure the
availability of response resources for a worst-case discharge event.
The VRP includes information about the vessel, (such as its name,
country of registry, identification number, call sign, and more),
contact information for the vessel's owner or operator, a list of
Captain of the Port
[[Page 19160]]
(COTP) zones that the vessel intends to operate in, the resources
identified to respond to a worst-case discharge in each operating area,
and the clear identification of the qualified individual--the person(s)
or group who is to be notified in the event of a spill in order to
activate the plan.
GAO Audit, VRP Program Feedback, and MORPAG Creation
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 included a provision for
the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the VRP
program. During this audit, from March 2019 to September 2020, the U.S.
Coast Guard Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy (CG-MER)
received feedback and data from operational units and identified the
need to improve the evaluation of VRP submissions and the VRP Program
overall.
Consequently, CG-MER commenced the process of forming the MORPAG in
April of 2020 and established its charter in August of 2020. The MORPAG
led the overall effort along with subject matter experts from relevant
program staffs and field units. Its membership consisted of the
following COTP Zones: Corpus Christi, Guam, Honolulu, Southeast Alaska,
and Western Alaska. Furthermore, this membership included program
representatives from Coast Guard Atlantic Area, Pacific Area, District
8, District 9, District 14, District 17, the National Strike Force
Coordination Center (NSFCC), and the Office of Maritime and
International Law (CG-LMI). The MORPAG is composed entirely of Federal
employees and is therefore not subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. See 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec. 3(2)(c)(i).
In September 2020, the GAO issued their final report analyzing the
Coast Guard's processes for reviewing, evaluating, and approving VRPs.
That audit report, GAO-20-554, can be found online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/710034.pdf.
In response to the Audit Report and fleet-wide feedback to the VRP
Program, the MORPAG adopted key program management practices in
carrying out its VRP advisory group efforts associated with analyzing
incident data involving VRPs to identify potential improvements to its
VRP review processes.
The MORPAG Process for Developing Recommendations
In April of 2020, the MORPAG established a phased approach and
executed a Plan of Action and Milestones (POAM) with the main goal of
providing recommendations for updating VRP regulations and aligning
national policy in order to improve program consistency, VRP
effectiveness, and streamlined submission and review processes. The
MORPAG also considered recommending guidance to support the expansion
of response capability and successful sustainment of APCs in remote
areas. This process included study of regulatory language, evaluation
of the OSRO classification program, and development of recommendations
to align programs and processes that support VRP development and
approval, including accurate and consistent evaluation of APCs. The
phased approach of the POAM was divided into four phases from April
2020 to December 2022: (1) Alignment to develop, refine, and approve
responsibilities for MORPAG; (2) Analysis of regulations, policy,
procedures, and guidelines; (3) Development of possible
recommendations; and (4) Implementation of possible changes in the VRP
program and outreach. During this period, contributing factors that
impacted MORPAG's efforts included loss of corporate knowledge from
personnel turnover, distance, and time zone differences, competing
mission demands, budget constraints to conduct in-person meetings,
logistical coordination between multiple operational units, and
restrictions during the global COVID-19 pandemic.
MORPAG Outreach
Planning for oil spills and preparing adequate response strategies
that meet NPC in remote areas where response resources are scarce is a
very complex process that can be confusing without proper guidance. The
MORPAG conducted a series of external engagements and outreach with
entities from the maritime community through onsite engagement sessions
in Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii to provide full transparency of process and
intention. This outreach also included a letter from CG-MER with an
enclosed audiovisual presentation that was distributed to tribal
nations located in Alaska. These engagements were conducted for the
sole purpose of providing a status update of MORPAG's progress.
MORPAG Areas of Improvement and Recommendations
(1) OSRO Classification. The OSRO classification program was
created in response to regulatory requirements from OPA 90. The program
is voluntary, and its purpose is to assist the development of response
plans for both vessels and facilities.The OSRO classification is
limited in scope relative to planning criteria required for VRP
compliance and has been subject to differing interpretations from OSROs
and vessel owners or operators. The MORPAG recommends the revision of
the current Guidelines for the U.S. Coast Guard Oil Spill Removal
Organization Classification Program to clarify the differentiation
between the OSRO classification criteria and vessel planning criteria.
The MORPAG also recommends the review and evaluation of applicable
Vessel Response Plan regulations for possible regulatory change.
(2) Equivalence. The Coast Guard reviews an Alternative Planning
Criteria (APC) by evaluating equivalence to the NPC. The regulations
require an APC to contain alternative procedures, methods, or equipment
standards, to provide for an equivalent level of planning, response, or
pollution mitigation strategies to the NPC. Equivalence as presented in
the regulations is subjective in nature because it lacks a defined
standard, resulting in a challenge for industry when developing
alternatives and for the Coast Guard when evaluating alternative
measures. The MORPAG recommends the introduction of an Equivalency
Board containing members from the Area Committee that could assist with
the delineation of standards for equivalency specific to an operating
area(s). This concept would standardize the process of submission and
evaluation for acceptance of an APC for inclusion in a VRP.
(3) Enforcing NPC Compliance. Current regulations allow a vessel
owner or operator to submit an APC request when they believe that
complying with applicable NPC is inappropriate for the areas in which
the vessel intends to operate. Vessel owners or operators are required
to identify available resources to the maximum extent practicable to
meet their planning requirements. However, there are not sufficient
accountability mechanisms in place to verify if a vessel owner or
operator has, in fact, identified all available response resources
specific to their vessel. The MORPAG recommends the development of
processes that could assist a vessel owner or operator in considering
all available resources specific to their vessel during the submission
of a VRP. The standardization of this process would reduce unintended
delays in the acceptance of an APC for inclusion in a VRP and ensure
resources are identified to respond to discharges up to the worst-case
discharge volume to the maximum extent practicable.
[[Page 19161]]
(4) Resource Availability. The planning standard requires the
identification and assurance of the availability of response resources
through ``contract or other approved means.'' However, it may sometimes
be the case that a vessel owner or operator identifies vessels of
opportunity (VOO) as a cost-effective possibility to comply with the
number of resources required in the VRP. The exact definition of a VOO
may vary, but often VOOs are resources identified on an ``as
available'' status with no commitment to respond. This removes an
incentive for industry to develop additional response capability. The
MORPAG recommends the review of existing policy and regulations that
could be revised or clarified to ensure that agreements between primary
providers and the entities (i.e., third parties) controlling other
resources guarantee availability to the required planning standard and
support VRP adherence to regulatory requirements.
(5) APC Administrators. CG-MER Policy Letter 01-17 (October 12,
2017) introduced the concept of an APC Administrator (i.e., a third
party) to manage the development and administration of an APC on behalf
of the vessel owner or operator. Allowing a third party to manage an
APC on behalf of a vessel owner or operator becomes complex when the
APC Administrator also acts as a service provider. A potential conflict
of interest could prevent the Administrator from identifying all
available response resources prior to justifying an APC as required.
This situation could remove an APC Administrator's impartiality when
identifying and contracting resources owned or controlled by a
different resource provider. The MORPAG recommends clarifying the role
of the APC Administrator to ensure objectivity in identifying all
available response resources, including those not owned or controlled
by the APC Administrator, for a vessel owner and operator's planning
requirements at a given operating area.
(6) Build-Out. Introduced by CG-MER Policy Letter 01-17, the term
``build-out plan'' is defined as descriptions of actions an APC
submitter plans to take to increase response capability. However, the
Coast Guard is limited in its ability to require build-out to enhance
response posture in a region. OSROs have demonstrated a trend of
investing in response resources, however, they are challenged with the
decision as to where to place additional resources to support their
business plan. The MORPAG recommends leveraging Area Committees to
provide risk assessments, a list of existing response resource
capabilities in the area, and define operating areas based on the
results where response resources, including those managed by OSROs,
could strategically be placed.
(7) Tools. The Coast Guard's VRP Program manages the review and
approval of VRPs that provide response coverage for more than 27,000
vessels operating in the waters of the U.S. Each plan requires
application of complex and comprehensive planning criteria and the VRP
Program does not have comprehensive guidance and tools that support a
consistent, uniform plan submission and review process. The MORPAG
recommends the development of planning tools and templates that support
APC and VRP submissions and reviews in collaboration with subject
matter experts from District Response Advisory Teams (DRAT) and the
National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC).
(8) Staffing. The 2020 GAO audit of the VRP program (GAO-20-554)
identified Coast Guard staffing as a contributing factor limiting the
effectiveness of VRP Program. The effective management of APCs and VRPs
exceeds current staffing at every level including Coast Guard Sector,
District, Area, and Coast Guard Headquarters, as well as support
programs such as the NSFCC. The MORPAG recommends an analysis be
conducted to evaluate current staffing and program workflow to identify
areas where resource proposals could be justified.
Future Coast Guard Actions
The VRP program must refine and clarify regulation and policy to
standardize expectations and processes, establish tools, and leverage
additional resources to efficiently manage APC evaluations for approval
of a VRP to ensure effective response planning. The MORPAG recommends
the Coast Guard charter a new group to determine feasibly and develop a
course of action to address all areas of improvement in a POAM with an
established realistic timeline.
V. Request for Information
The Coast Guard requests relevant comments and information from the
public regarding the VRP program and MORPAG's recommendations. We will
use feedback provided to enhance our capabilities in marine
environmental protection. We ask that you also keep in mind the Coast
Guard's mission to ensure a safe, secure, and resilient marine
transportation system that facilitates commerce and protects national
security interests. Commenters should feel free to answer as many
questions as they would like, but also provide specificity, detail, and
the logic behind any finding or numerical estimates. Listed below are
questions to guide your responses. We want and encourage your feedback.
(1) Build-out provides the means to ultimately reach NPC in areas
where response capability is inadequate for vessels. What are tactics
the Coast Guard should consider to promote improvement of response
capabilities and make it possible for vessels to meet NPC in remote
areas?
(2) What can the Coast Guard do to improve the OSRO classification
program to support the planning process that vessel owners and
operators must follow to achieve VRP approval?
(3) Should the Coast Guard apply performance standards when
evaluating the availability of an identified resource in a VRP?
(4) What can the Coast Guard do to ensure that vessel owners and
operators avail themselves of all available resources in an attempt to
meet NPC before applying for an APC?
(5) The Coast Guard is tasked with reviewing APCs and accepting
them if justified. Should Area Committees have jurisdiction or have
responsibilities relative to management of APC?
(6) How can Area Committees provide input to the management of an
APC and VRP for the area a vessel intends to operate?
(7) Operating areas where APCs are being used are often remote with
scarce resources. These areas represent many challenges to response
planning capability. Local knowledge would better facilitate
establishing the management of APC. Should the Coast Guard consider
establishing APC Managers at COTP zones where APCs are being used?
(8) Although vessels operating in U.S. waters but not coming to or
from a U.S. port are not required to have an approved VRP, these
vessels on innocent passage or transit passage still present the same
environmental risks as vessels that are not on such passage. Should the
U.S. Congress consider expanding the requirement for vessels on
innocent/transit passage to have an approved VRP, or some other
requirement to address this issue?
(9) The Coast Guard enforces the requirement for vessels to operate
with an approved VRP, should APC Administrators enforce compliance with
their accepted APC operating procedures?
(10) How can APC Administrators enforce accepted APC operating
procedures?
[[Page 19162]]
Dated: March 27, 2023.
J.F. Burdian,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Response
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-06611 Filed 3-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P