Notice2023-26533
Request for Information on the Coast Guard Implementation of a Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning Criteria Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 4, 2023
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 mandated the Coast Guard create planning criteria for vessel response plans (VRPs) distinct to the Western Alaska and Prince William Sound Captain of the Port zones. These criteria must include minimum response times, improvements to wildlife response, and consideration of prevention and mitigation measures. The Coast Guard seeks input from the public to establish these VRP planning criteria. The information will assist the Coast Guard in potentially developing a regulatory proposal to support the mandate.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 231 (Monday, December 4, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84157-84161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26533]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG-2023-0824]
Request for Information on the Coast Guard Implementation of a
Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning Criteria Program
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 mandated
the Coast Guard create planning criteria for vessel response plans
(VRPs) distinct to the Western Alaska and Prince William Sound Captain
of the Port zones. These criteria must include minimum response times,
improvements to wildlife response, and consideration of prevention and
mitigation measures. The Coast Guard seeks input from the public to
establish these VRP planning criteria. The information will assist the
Coast Guard in potentially developing a regulatory proposal to support
the mandate.
DATES: Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March
4, 2024.
[[Page 84158]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using the Federal Decision-Making
Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377653455e565956197d19705652594d5b527742445450195a5e5b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e7f5a4c575f505f107410795f5b5044525b7e4b4d5d5910535752">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Comments
The U.S. Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
understanding vessel oil spill response planning and capabilities in
remote areas of Alaska. The Coast Guard will consider all information
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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. To do so, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-
2023-0824 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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
Public comments will be posted in our online docket at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 but will carefully consider each submission. 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
announced separately.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal information you
have provided. For more information 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 Regulations
CGAA 2022 Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022
CG-543 Coast Guard Office of Vessel Activities
CG-MER Coast Guard Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy
COTP Captain of the Port
D17 Coast Guard Seventeenth District
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
MORPAG Maritime Oil-spill Response Plan Advisory Group
MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin
NPC National Planning Criteria
NSFCC National Strike Force Coordination Center
NTV Nontank Vessel
NTV final rule Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Response Plan
Requirements final rule
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
OSRO Oil Spill Removal Organization
RFI Request for information
VRP Vessel response plan
III. Purpose
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing this request for information (RFI)
to collect opinions, ideas, recommendations, and concerns related to
the Coast Guard's mandate to create planning criteria for vessel
response plans (VRPs) distinct to the Western Alaska and Prince William
Sound Captain of the Port (COTP) zones. The Coast Guard is tasked with
developing planning criteria suitable for operating areas where
response capability is currently inadequate.
The Coast Guard will use the public comments received in response
to this RFI to better understand industry limitations, environmental
concerns, and tribal concerns.
IV. Background
Under title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections
155.1015 and 155.5015, VRPs are required to cover all navigable waters
of the United States in which a vessel operates. Several areas under
U.S. jurisdiction do not have sufficient resources to meet the national
planning criteria (NPC) prescribed under 33 CFR part 155. In remote
areas, where adequate response resources are not available, or the
available commercial resources do not meet the required planning
criteria for where the vessels are operating, a vessel owner or
operator may request that the Coast Guard accept an alternative
planning criteria (APC).
In August 2009, the Coast Guard Office of Vessel Activities (CG-
543) published CG-543 Policy Letter 09-02,\1\ ``Industry Guidelines for
Requesting Alternative Planning Criteria Approval, One Time Waivers and
Interim Operating Authorization,'' to provide guidance to the maritime
industry in applying for an APC pursuant to 33 CFR.1065(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/Policy%20Letters/2009/CG-543_pol09-02.pdf">https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/Policy%20Letters/2009/CG-543_pol09-02.pdf</a> (last accessed
November 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard published the Nontank
Vessel Response Plans and Other Response Plan Requirements final rule
(hereafter the ``NTV final rule'') (78 FR 60124), requiring nontank
vessels (NTVs) over 400 gross tons to submit VRPs, which made the NCP
in 33 CFR part 155 applicable to thousands of additional vessels across
the United States, including geographic areas with limited commercially
available response resources. Over time, it became apparent that
additional guidance would be useful in addressing compliance issues
that had developed from the promulgation of the NTV final rule.
In 2015, Coast Guard Seventeenth District (D17) published a Marine
Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) \2\ that provided guidance for APC
submissions and expectations within the Western Alaska, Prince William
Sound, and Southeast Alaska COTP zones, with a focus on NTV traffic.
D17 received a multitude of comments from various sectors of the
maritime industry on the MSIB. After reviewing the comments, the Coast
Guard chose to update the national APC guidance rather than singularly
focusing on APC guidelines specific to Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/MSIB/2015/008_15_8-26-2015.pdf">https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/MSIB/2015/008_15_8-26-2015.pdf</a> (last accessed November 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 12, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Marine
Environmental Response Policy (CG-MER) issued CG-MER Policy Letter 01-
17, ``Alternative Planning Criteria National Guidelines for Vessel
Response Plans'' to provide consistent guidelines nationally for
evaluating proposed APCs, applicable to tank and NTVs. That policy
letter was canceled with the publication, on March 15, 2023, of CG-MER
Policy Letter 01-17, Change 1,\3\ ``Change 1 to Alternative
[[Page 84159]]
Planning Criteria National Guidelines for Vessel Response Plans'' to
reduce the administrative burden on industry and clarify the APC
submission process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ <a href="https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/2781/CG-MER%20Policy%20Letter%2001-17%20Change%201%20-%Mar%202023%20">https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/2781/CG-MER%20Policy%20Letter%2001-17%20Change%201%20-%Mar%202023%20</a>(Signed).pdf (last accessed November 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2019-2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
conducted an audit to review the VRP program. The GAO provided CG-MER
with recommendations, including ensuring that resources identified in a
VRP are available to respond, and retaining Coast Guard personnel with
local knowledge when evaluating APCs. In April of 2020, the U.S. Coast
Guard established the Maritime Oil-spill Response Planning Advisory
Group (MORPAG) to analyze processes internal to Coast Guard management
of VRPs and APCs, and that final report was submitted to CG-MER in
March 2023.
In September 2020, the GAO issued their final report analyzing the
Coast Guard's processes for reviewing, evaluating, and approving VRPs.
That audit report, ``Improved Analysis of Vessel Response Plan Use
Could Help Mitigate Marine Pollution Risk,'' GAO-20-554, can be found
online at <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/710034.pdf">https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/710034.pdf</a>.
The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 (CGAA 2022),\4\
passed in December of 2022 (Public Law 117-263), includes a section
designed to address the specific needs of Western Alaska. Section 11309
mandates the Coast Guard create a Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning
Criteria Program to include vessel oil spill planning criteria specific
to Western Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt282/html/CRPT-117hrpt282.htm">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt282/html/CRPT-117hrpt282.htm</a> (last accessed November 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 2023, the Coast Guard published an RFI seeking public
input on the MORPAG recommendations (88 FR 19159) \5\ to improve the
VRP program and policies and enhance the Coast Guard's mission in
marine environmental protection from oil spills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/30/2023-06611/request-for-information-on-coast-guard-vessel-response-plan-and-maritime-oil-spill-response-plan">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/30/2023-06611/request-for-information-on-coast-guard-vessel-response-plan-and-maritime-oil-spill-response-plan</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2023, CG-MER established the Marine Environmental Response
Criteria Action Team (MERCAT) to analyze, develop, and implement
Section 11309 of the CGAA 2022, Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning
Criteria, as well as reconcile MORPAG recommendations into the VRP
program, where appropriate. As outlined in the CGAA 2022, Western
Alaska Oil Spill planning criteria should include:
(1) Mechanical oil spill response resources that are required to be
located within any part of the area of responsibility of the Western
Alaska COTP zone or the Prince William Sound COTP zone for where it has
been determined that NPCs are inappropriate for a vessel operating in
that area.
(2) Response times for mobilization of oil spill response resources
and arrival on the scene of a worst-case discharge or substantial
threat of such a discharge.
(3) Pre-identified vessels for oil spill response that are capable
of operating in the ocean environment.
(4) Ensuring the availability of at least one Oil Spill Removal
Organization (OSRO) that is classified by the Coast Guard and that:
(a) Can respond in all operating environments in that area.
(b) Controls dedicated and nondedicated oil spill response
resources through ownership, contracts, agreements, or other approved
means, sufficient--
(i) To mobilize and sustain a response to a worst-case discharge of
oil and
(ii) To contain, recover, and temporarily store discharged oil.
(c) Has pre-positioned oil spill response resources in strategic
locations throughout the area in a manner that ensures the ability to
support response personnel, marine operations, air cargo, or other
related logistics infrastructure.
(d) Has temporary storage capability using both dedicated and non-
dedicated assets located in the area.
(e) Has non-mechanical oil spill response resources capable of
responding to a discharge of persistent oil and a discharge of
nonpersistent oil, whether the discharged oil was carried by a vessel
as fuel or cargo; and
(f) Has wildlife response resources for primary, secondary, and
tertiary responses to support carcass collection, sampling, deterrence,
rescue, and rehabilitation of birds, sea turtles, marine mammals,
fishery resources, and other wildlife.
(5) With respect to tank barges carrying non-persistent oil in bulk
as cargo, oil spill response resources that are required to be carried
on board.
(6) Specifying a minimum length of time that approval of a VRP
using Western Alaska planning criteria is valid.
(7) Managing wildlife protection and rehabilitation, including
identified wildlife protection and rehabilitation resources in the
area.
Additional considerations for Western Alaska Oil Spill planning
criteria may include:
(1) Vessel routing measures consistent with international routing
measure deviation protocols.
(2) Maintenance of real-time continuous vessel tracking,
monitoring, and engagement protocols with the ability to detect and
address vessel operation anomalies.
(3) Creation of subregions where response needs and capabilities
may require different planning criteria.
V. Request for Information
The Coast Guard requests relevant comments and information from the
public regarding the mandate to create planning criteria unique for
VRPs in the Western Alaska COTP zone. We will use feedback provided to
develop proposed planning criteria for public comment. 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) Should NPC remain the standard where response capability is
sufficient to support a vessels' planning requirements?
(2) What criteria should the Coast Guard use to determine realistic
response times for resources, while ensuring an effective response in
Western Alaska?
(3) With the potential growth in maritime shipping in the arctic
environment, how can the planning criteria be written to ensure
response capability increases with the growth and additional risk
presented by vessels operating in Western Alaska?
(4) OSRO classification is not determined based on vessels'
response requirements, and participation in the OSRO classification
program is voluntary. Because of this, VRP compliance cannot be
determined through OSRO classification. Should the OSRO classification
program be changed so that it directly affects VRP compliance
determination?
(5) Should the Coast Guard establish a unique classification scheme
for OSROs in Alaska based on the proposed Western Alaska Planning
Criteria?
(6) Since NPC is the current planning standard, should the Coast
Guard create subregions in Western Alaska to address different planning
criteria based on operating environment, traffic patterns, and response
capability to ensure NPC remains the standard where it is achievable?
(7) Should the Coast Guard establish subregions to proactively plan
for expected vessel traffic increases in
[[Page 84160]]
certain areas? If so, how should we do this?
(8) How could planning criteria be written for a vessel's
destination instead of requiring planning for multiple subregions on a
vessel's route?
(9) Some resources that response providers rely on are not owned or
controlled by the provider. Some may be used for other purposes or may
be resources of opportunity and not always be immediately available to
respond. Should regulations require periodic audits of a providers'
response resources to ensure the resources identified in a VRP are
available and capable of responding within the required time?
(10) How should the criteria be written to ensure an OSRO has
wildlife response resources? What types of wildlife response resources
would be appropriate, and how would the Coast Guard verify these?
(11) How should the Coast Guard ensure that all stakeholders' and
affected parties' concerns have been heard or received? What
recommendations do you have to maximize outreach and understanding of
any new planning standard?
(12) APC is intended to minimize the impact to maritime commerce
where response capabilities in remote areas are insufficient for VRP
compliance. In situations where a vessel needs to operate in a remote
area and cannot comply with Western Alaska Planning Criteria, should
APC be an option for VRP approval, or should the Coast Guard deny a
vessel from operating there? Please describe any costs you may incur
because of this change.
(13) If the Coast Guard needs to establish one set of Western
Alaska Planning Criteria for all areas of the Western Alaska and Prince
William Sound COTP zones where NPC cannot be met, given the current
variation in response capabilities across these areas, how could the
Coast Guard design these planning criteria to ensure that greater
response capability is maintained in those areas where it is needed?
(14) Should the criteria require response gear on all tank barges
or only tank barges carrying non-persistent oil?
(15) As a tank or NTV owner or operator who owns or operates
vessel(s) that carry the types of oil defined in 33 CFR part 155, how
would the adoption of the Western Alaska (Western Alaska COTP zone in
addition to the Prince William Sound COTP zone) oil spill planning
criteria, or the adoption of subregions for planning purposes, impact
your business? Please describe in detail the positive (beneficial) or
negative (costs) economic impacts this would have on your business.
(16) What would you need to do to meet the Western Alaska oil spill
planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion that
you are not already doing under the national planning criteria in 33
CFR part 155? For example, would you need to hire new employees,
implement additional training, drills, and exercises, purchase new
equipment, and keep records (time and paperwork costs) to meet the oil
spill planning criteria described in the 2022 Coast Guard Authorization
Act?
For questions 17-22, please identify if the response is specific to
tank, NTV, or both.
(17) If you are a tank or NTV vessel owner, and taking into
consideration the current regulations for VRPs for tank and NTV vessels
in 33 CFR part 155, what would you specifically need to do to your
current VRP to comply with the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill
planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion, which
includes the surrounding areas, as described in the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2022? What additional costs would be incurred
beyond the existing VRP regulations or under the national planning
criteria in 33 CFR part 155?
(18) If you are a small entity (small business, small organization,
or small governmental jurisdiction) that owns tank or NTV vessels, how
would the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or
the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas
impact your business? Please be specific and describe any positive
(beneficial) or negative (costs) impacts this would have on your
business or organization.
(19) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, would adoption of
the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a
Western Alaska subregion affect your insurance costs and liability
coverage? If so, please be specific and describe any economic impacts
this may have.
(20) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, if the planning
criteria required in a subregion were more stringent than that of the
Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria, what would be the economic
impact (costs and benefits, if any) of this difference on your
business? Please be specific and describe in detail the nature of this
difference on your business.
(21) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, would you need to
modify your current response plan, through contract or other means, to
ensure the availability of an OSRO to respond to a shoreline oil spill
in the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska subregion, as described in
the CGAA 2022? Please be specific in your response and state why you
believe this may or may not be necessary.
(22) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, what would it cost
to develop and submit a new VRP that contains APC as defined in 33 CFR
sections155.1065 and 155.5067 for the Western Alaska oil spill planning
criteria or planning criteria for a Western Alaska subregion and the
surrounding areas?
(23) If you are a Tribal government, how would the adoption of the
Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western
Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas impact your government?
Please describe in detail the positive (beneficial) or negative
economic and environmental impacts (costs) this would have on your
government.
(24) If you are an OSRO, how would the adoption of the Western
Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska
subregion affect your capability to respond to an oil spill in these
areas or subregion? What capital costs would you incur as an OSRO to
meet the planning criteria in these areas or subregion as described in
the CGAA 2022? Please include the time it would take for additional
recordkeeping, if applicable, and the costs associated with any
paperwork.
(25) As an OSRO, do you currently have adequate resources (salvage
and firefighting equipment, lightering, and so on) and capabilities to
respond to an oil spill in the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska
subregion as described in the CGAA 2022? With your current resources
and capabilities, would you be able to respond to an average most
probable discharge, a maximum most probable discharge, or a worst-case
discharge of oil, as defined in 33 CFR part 155, in these areas? If
not, please describe in detail what resources you would need to obtain
or capabilities you would need to develop to respond to an oil spill in
these areas, and the costs associated with these changes.
(26) As an OSRO, would you be able to respond to a discharge of oil
with the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or
Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas in the response
times given in 33 CFR part 155? If not, please describe in detail why
these response times would not be achievable in these areas, and what
would be the appropriate response times you think would be achievable
in these areas. Would pre-positioning of oil spill response resources
be necessary for the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska subregion as
described in the
[[Page 84161]]
CGAA 2022? What would be the additional costs to your business/
organization for changes in the response times in these areas?
(27) Please specify, as a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, an
OSRO, or any other party that may be affected by the adoption of the
Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or a Western Alaska
subregion and the surrounding areas, please describe in detail any
other economic impacts, not stated previously, that this change may
have on your business beyond the current requirements listed in 33 CFR
part 1.
(28) Are there any other positive or negative environmental impacts
from this potential action? If so, please provide detail as to how and
what would be impacted. To the degree possible, please provide the
data, impact assessments, and other pertinent background information
necessary to understand and reproduce your results.
Dated: November 28, 2023.
D.S. Tulis,
Director, Emergency Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2023-26533 Filed 12-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 4, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.