Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices 84157 

As required by 45 CFR part 75 

Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, 

NFEs are required to disclose in FAPIIS 

any information about criminal, civil, 

and administrative proceedings, and/or 

affirm that there is no new information 

to provide. This applies to NFEs that 

receive Federal awards (currently active 

grants, cooperative agreements, and 

procurement contracts) greater than $10 

million for any period of time during 

the period of performance of an award/ 

project. 

Mandatory Disclosure Requirements 

As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the 

Uniform Guidance, and HHS 

implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 

75, the IHS must require an NFE or an 

applicant for a Federal award to 

disclose, in a timely manner, in writing 

to the IHS or pass-through entity all 

violations of Federal criminal law 

involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity 

violations potentially affecting the 

Federal award. 

All applicants and recipients must 

disclose in writing, in a timely manner, 

to the IHS and to the HHS Office of 

Inspector General all information 

related to violations of Federal criminal 

law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity 

violations potentially affecting the 

Federal award. 45 CFR 75.113. 

Disclosures must be sent in writing to: 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Indian Health Service, 

Division of Grants Management, ATTN: 

Marsha Brookins, Director, 5600 Fishers 

Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 

20857, (Include ‘‘Mandatory Grant 

Disclosures’’ in subject line), Office: 

(301) 443–5204, Fax: (301) 594–0899, 

Email: DGM@ihs.gov. 

AND 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant 

Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 

Independence Avenue SW, Cohen 

Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 

20201, URL: https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/ 

report-fraud/, (Include ‘‘Mandatory 

Grant Disclosures’’ in subject line), Fax: 

(202) 205–0604 (Include ‘‘Mandatory 

Grant Disclosures’’ in subject line) or 

Email: MandatoryGranteeDisclosures@

oig.hhs.gov. 

Failure to make required disclosures 

can result in any of the remedies 

described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies 

for noncompliance, including 

suspension or debarment (see 2 CFR 

part 180 and 2 CFR part 376). 

VII. Agency Contacts 

1. Questions on the program matters 

may be directed to: Tamara D. James, 

Ph.D., Division of Behavioral Health, 

Mail Stop: 8N10, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301–443– 

1872, Email: tamara.james@ihs.gov. 

2. Questions on awards management 

and fiscal matters may be directed to: 

Indian Health Service, Division of 

Grants Management, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, 

Email: DGM@ihs.gov. 

3. For technical assistance with 

Grants.gov, please contact the 

Grants.gov help desk at (800) 518–4726, 

or by email at support@grants.gov. 

4. For technical assistance with 

GrantSolutions, please contact the 

GrantSolutions help desk at (866) 577– 

0771, or by email at help@

grantsolutions.gov. 

VIII. Other Information 

The Public Health Service strongly 

encourages all grant, cooperative 

agreement, and contract recipients to 

provide a smoke-free workplace and 

promote the non-use of all tobacco 

products. In addition, Public Law 103– 

227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, 

prohibits smoking in certain facilities 

(or in some cases, any portion of the 

facility) in which regular or routine 

education, library, day care, health care, 

or early childhood development 

services are provided to children. This 

is consistent with the HHS mission to 

protect and advance the physical and 

mental health of the American people. 

Roselyn Tso, 

Director, Indian Health Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26504 Filed 12–1–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4166–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 

Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to section 1009 of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended, notice is hereby given of the 

following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: 

Small Research Grants for Data Analysis, 

Exploratory/Developmental Research, 

Clinical Trials Readiness, Phased Innovation, 

and Clinical Research Course Development 

in Down Syndrome for the INCLUDE Project 

2nd Review. 

Date: December 11, 2023. 

Time: 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 

Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 

Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). 

Contact Person: Bukhtiar H Shah, DVM, 

Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4120, 

MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806– 

7314, shahb@csr.nih.gov. 

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 

93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 

93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: November 29, 2023. 

Victoria E. Townsend, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26551 Filed 12–1–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
84158 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices 

1https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/ 

DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/ 

Policy%20Letters/2009/CG-543_pol09-02.pdf (last 

accessed November 14, 2023). 

2https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/ 

DCO%20Documents/5p/MSIB/2015/008_15_8-26- 

2015.pdf (last accessed November 14, 2023). 

3https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/ 

Attachments/2781/CG-MER%20Policy%20

Letter%2001-17%20Change%201%20- 

%Mar%202023%20(Signed).pdf (last accessed 

November 15, 2023). 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

using the Federal Decision-Making 

Portal at 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 

Adriana.J.Gaenzle@uscg.mil. 

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 www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to www.regulations.gov, 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 www.regulations.gov, 

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 

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 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 www.regulations.gov 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). 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices 84159 

4https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT117hrpt282/html/CRPT-117hrpt282.htm (last 

accessed November 14, 2023). 

5https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2023/03/30/2023-06611/request-for-information-oncoast-guard-vessel-response-plan-and-maritime-oilspill-response-plan. 

Planning Criteria National Guidelines 

for Vessel Response Plans’’ to reduce 

the administrative burden on industry 

and clarify the APC submission process. 

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 https:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/720/710034.pdf. 

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. 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
84160 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID: FEMA- 2023–0014; OMB No. 

1660–NW164] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; an Investigation of 

the Effect of Disaster Response and 

Recovery on Perceived Stress and 

Emotional Trauma 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice of new collection 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), as part of 

its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

invites the general public to take this 

opportunity to comment on an 

Investigation of the Effect of Disaster 

Response and Recovery on Perceived 

Stress and Emotional Trauma. In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks 

comments concerning the effect of 

disasters on the mental health of 

emergency managers at local, State, and 

Federal levels. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before February 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate 

submissions to the docket, please 

submit comments at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

FEMA–2023–0014. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

All submissions received must 

include the agency name and Docket ID. 

Regardless of the method used for 

submitting comments or material, all 

submissions will be posted, without 

change, to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, 

and will include any personal 

information you provide. Therefore, 

submitting this information makes it 

public. You may wish to read the 

Privacy and Security Notice that is 

available via a link on the homepage of 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Corley, Supervisory 

Psychologist, FEMA Mental Health, at 

fema-mentalhealth@fema.dhs.gov or 

(202) 880–7506. You may contact the 

Information Management Division for 

copies of the proposed collection of 

information at email address: FEMAInformation-Collections-Management@

fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A study to 

investigate the effect of disaster 

response and recovery on emergency 

managers was requested by Congress in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021 (Pub. L. 116–260). 29 CFR part 

1960, entitled ‘‘Basic Program Elements 

for Federal Employee Occupational 

Safety and Health Programs and Related 

Matters’’, contains special provisions to 

assure safe and healthful working 

conditions for Federal employees; 

requiring the head of each Federal 

Agency to maintain an effective and 

comprehensive occupational safety and 

health program consistent with section 

6 of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91– 

596) (OSHA Act). Furthermore, 5 U.S.C. 

7902 requires the head of each agency 

to develop and support organized safety 

promotion to reduce accidents and 

injuries to its employees, encourage safe 

practices, and eliminate hazards and 

risks. Under 5 U.S.C. 7902(e), Agencies 

must also keep a record of injuries and 

accidents. 

This program was established to 

improve the mental health of FEMA’s, 

as well as State and local, emergency 

managers in response to the effects of 

stress caused by disasters. This data 

collection is needed to comply with the 

OSHA Act, 5 U.S.C. 7902 requiring the 

monitoring, reporting, and mitigation of 

workplace injuries, and with the request 

from Congress to undertake this survey. 

Collection of Information 

Title: An Investigation of the Effect of 

Disaster Response and Recovery on 

Perceived Stress and Emotional Trauma. 

Type of Information Collection: New 

information collection. 

OMB Number: 1660–NW164. 

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF–119– 

FY–23–100, FEMA Congressional 

Mental Health Emergency Manager 

Wellness Study Survey. 

Abstract: This information collection 

supports a study to investigate the effect 

of disaster response and recovery on 

emergency managers that was requested 

by Congress in 2022. This is a voluntary 

survey that will be collected 

electronically with approximately 38 

questions pertaining to the individuals’ 

experience and demographics, as well 

as their perceptions of emotional trauma 

and stress symptoms while supporting a 

disaster response or recovery. Prior to 

seeing these questions, participants will 

see an informed consent screen that 

outlines the nature of the study, risks, 

benefits, and Institutional Review Board 

(IRB) information. Participants may 

choose to end the survey at any time 

without questions being asked. 

Participants are given mental health 

resources to support them in the event 

of emotional triggering. 

Affected Public: State, local, and 

Tribal governments. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

378. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 378. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 189. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Cost: $11,712. 

Estimated Respondents’ Operation 

and Maintenance Costs: $0. 

Estimated Respondents’ Capital and 

Start-Up Costs: $0. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the 

Federal Government: $306,752. 

Comments 

Comments may be submitted as 

indicated in the ADDRESSES caption 

above. Comments are solicited to (a) 

evaluate whether the proposed data 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1