10704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

Federal agencies with an annual 

extramural research and development 

(R&D) budget exceeding $100 million 

are required to participate in the SBIR 

Program. Similarly, Federal agencies 

with an extramural R&D budget 

exceeding $1 billion are required to 

participate in the STTR Program. 

Federal agencies who participate in 

the SBIR and STTR programs must 

collect information from the public to: 

(1) Meet their reporting requirements 

under 15 U.S.C. 638(b)(7), (g)(8), (i), 

(j)(1)(E), (j)(3)(C), (l), (o)(10), and (v); 

(2) Meet the requirement to maintain 

both a publicly accessible database of 

SBIR/STTR award information and a 

government database of SBIR/STTR 

award information for SBIR and STTR 

program evaluation under 15 U.S.C. 

638g(10), (k), (o)(9), and (o)(15); and 

(3) Meet requirements for public 

outreach under 15 U.S.C. 638(j)(2)(F), 

(o)(14), and (s). 

The prior information collect request 

for OMB No. 1600–0005 was approved 

through February 28, 2015 by OMB in 

a Notice of OMB Action. 

The information being collected is 

used by the Government’s contracting 

officers and other acquisition personnel, 

including technical and legal staffs to 

determine adequacy of technical and 

management approach, experience, 

responsibility, responsiveness, expertise 

of the firms submitting offers, 

identification of members of the public 

(i.e., small businesses) who qualify for, 

and are interested in participating in, 

the DHS SBIR Program, facilitate SBIR 

outreach to the public, and provide the 

DHS SBIR Program Office necessary and 

sufficient information to determine that 

proposals submitted by the public to the 

DHS SBIR Program meet criteria for 

consideration under the program. 

Failure to collect this information 

would adversely affect the quality of 

products and services DHS receives 

from contractors. Potentially, contracts 

would be awarded to firms without 

sufficient experience and expertise, 

thereby placing the Department’s 

operations in jeopardy. Defective and 

inadequate contractor deliverables 

would adversely affect DHS’s 

fulfillment of the mission requirements 

in all areas. Additionally, the 

Department would be unsuccessful in 

identifying small businesses with 

research and development (R&D) 

capabilities, which would adversely 

affect the mission requirements in this 

area. 

Many sources of the requested 

information use automated word 

processing systems, databases, and web 

portal to facilitate preparation of 

material to be submitted and to post and 

collect information. It is common place 

within many of DHS’s Components for 

submissions to be electronic as a result 

of implementation of e-Government 

initiatives. 

Information technology (i.e., 

electronic web portal) is used in the 

collection of information to reduce the 

data gathering and records management 

burden. DHS uses a secure Web site 

which the public can propose SBIR 

research topics and submit proposals in 

response to SBIR solicitations. In 

addition, DHS uses a web portal to 

review RFIs and register to submit a 

white paper or proposal in response to 

a specific BAA. The data collection 

forms standardize the collection of 

information that is necessary and 

sufficient for the DHS SBIR Program 

Office to meet its requirements under 15 

U.S.C. 638. 

There has been no change in the 

information being collected. The 

reduction in the total annual burden is 

based on agency estimates. First, the 

estimate is based on the number of 

expected contract awards requiring the 

submission of information has been 

declining in the last three years. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

is particularly interested in comments 

which: 

1. Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. 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; 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

4. Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

Analysis: 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief 

Procurement Officer, DHS. 

Title: Solicitation of Proposal 

Information for Award of Public 

Contracts. 

OMB Number: 1600–0005. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: Private Sector. 

Number of Respondents: 13,612. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 7 

hours. 

Total Burden Hours: 285,852. 

Carlene C. Ileto, 

Executive Director, Enterprise Business 

Management Office. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04126 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[USCG–2011–1178] 

National Preparedness for Response 

Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

announces that the updated draft PREP 

Guidelines are available for public 

comment. The USCG is publishing this 

notice on behalf of the National 

Scheduling Coordination Committee 

(NSCC), which is comprised of 

representatives from the USCG; 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA); Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) under the Department of 

Transportation (DOT); and the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

(BSEE) under the Department of the 

Interior (DOI). 

DATES: Comments must reach USCG by 

April 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and additional materials, identified by 

USCG docket number USCG–2011– 

1178, using any one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries 

accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The telephone number is 202– 

366–9329. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for further instructions on 

submitting comments. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of 

these methods. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For USCG: Mr. Jonathan Smith, Office 

of Marine Environmental Response 

Policy, 202–372–2675. 

For BSEE: Mr. John Caplis, Oil Spill 

Preparedness Division, 703–787–1364. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 10705 

1On July 16, 2014, BSEE published a notice 

indicating that an updated draft would be made 

available for public comment in the original USCG 

docket, USCG–2011–1178 (79 FR 41592). 

For EPA: Mr. Troy Swackhammer, 

Office of Emergency Management, 

Regulation and Implementation 

Division, 202–564–1966. 

For PHMSA: Mr. Eddie Murphy, 

Office of Pipeline Safety, 202–366–4595. 

For questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket: Ms. 

Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, DOT 

Docket Operations, 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

the revision of the PREP Guidelines by 

submitting comments and related 

materials. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting comments: If you submit a 

comment, please include the docket 

number (USCG–2011–1178), indicate 

the specific section of the PREP 

Guidelines to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type 

‘‘USCG–2011–1178’’ in the search box, 

and click ‘‘Search.’’ Then click 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ on the appropriate 

line. If you submit your comments by 

mail or hand delivery, submit them in 

an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2

by 11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the DOT 

Facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will 

consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Viewing comments and documents: 

To view comments as well as 

documents mentioned in this notice as 

being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type 

‘‘USCG–2011–1178’’ and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Then click the ‘‘Open Docket 

Folder.’’ Additional relevant comments 

are available in docket BSEE–2014–0003 

and may be viewed online using the 

same procedure as for docket USCG– 

2011–1178. If you do not have access to 

the Internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the DOT West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the DOT to use the 

Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of comments received 

into any of our dockets by the name of 

the individual submitting the comment 

(or signing the comment, if submitted 

on behalf of an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review a 

Privacy Act and system of records 

notice regarding our public dockets in 

the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public meeting: We do not currently 

plan to hold a public meeting, but you 

may request one using any of the 

methods listed under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that a public meeting would 

aid the revision of the PREP Guidelines, 

we will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a later notice in the 

Federal Register. 

II. Acronyms 

ACP Area Contingency Plan 

AMPD Average Most Probable Discharge 

APC Alternative Planning Criteria 

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FOSC Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

FPSO Floating Production, Storage, and 

Offloading 

FR Federal Register 

GIUE Government-Initiated Unannounced 

Exercise 

GRPs Geographic Response Plans 

GRS Geographic Response Strategies 

HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and 

Evaluation Program 

IMT Incident Management Team 

MFF Marine Firefighting 

MMPD Maximum Most Probable Discharge 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NRT National Response Team 

NSCC National Scheduling Coordination 

Committee 

NTV Nontank Vessels 

OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

OSPD Oil Spill Preparedness Division 

OSRO Oil Spill Removal Organization 

OSRP Oil Spill Response Plan 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

PREP Preparedness for Response Exercise 

Program 

QI Qualified Individual 

SMFF Salvage and Marine Firefighting 

SMT Spill Management Team 

SONS Spill of National Significance 

TTX Tabletop Exercise 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

VRP Vessel Response Plan 

WCD Worst Case Discharge 

III. Background 

On February 22, 2012, the USCG, on 

behalf of the NSCC, invited comments 

and suggestions for updating the PREP 

Guidelines (77 FR 10542). The NSCC 

received public comments in docket 

number USCG–2011–1178, and those 

comments can be viewed online as 

described in the ‘‘Public Participation’’ 

section earlier in this document. After 

considering those comments, the NSCC 

issued a draft update to the PREP 

Guidelines. The NSCC also issued a 

notice (79 FR 16363, March 24, 2014) 

that announced the availability of the 

draft update to the PREP Guidelines, 

invited comment on the draft, and 

provided responses to the comments 

received in docket USCG–2011–1178. 

That second notice (79 FR 16363) was 

published as a BSEE-issued document 

in docket BSEE–2014–0003. The NSCC 

has considered the comments received 

in docket BSEE–2014–0003, and today 

announces the availability of an 

updated draft, invites public comment 

on the updated draft, and responds to 

comments received in the BSEE docket 

in response to the March 24, 2014, 

notice. Although this document 

responds to comments received in the 

BSEE docket, all further comments 

should be directed to the docket USCG– 

2011–1178.1 The NSCC does not plan to 

use other dockets for this revision of the 

PREP Guidelines. 

IV. Summary of Comments and 

Changes 

When BSEE, on behalf of the NSCC, 

requested public review of the first 

updated draft PREP Guidelines in its 

March 2014 notice, BSEE received 83 

comments from government agencies, 

regulated communities, private 

industry, and non-governmental 

organizations. All of the comments 

received are posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, under docket 

number BSEE–2014–0003. This 

document summarizes and responds to 

those comments that were within the 

scope of the proposed update. 

The NSCC has incorporated numerous 

changes to the draft PREP Guidelines 

document as a result of these public 

comments, and has also updated the 

document to reflect other new planning 

requirements such as the recent 

regulatory requirements relating to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

10706 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

nontank vessels (NTVs). In the 

following sections, we summarize the 

comments that the NSCC received and 

the changes it has made to the revised 

update of the PREP Guidelines. 

A. Summary of Changes 

Definitions and Terminology: The 

NSCC has changed certain exerciserelated terms in order to harmonize 

PREP with other national-level exercise 

programs. In particular, the term ‘‘Spill 

Management Team (SMT)’’ has been 

replaced by the term ‘‘Incident 

Management Team (IMT).’’ The term 

‘‘Tabletop Exercise (TTX)’’ has been 

removed from the PREP terminology 

and will now simply be referred to as an 

exercise. For example, an SMT TTX will 

now be called an IMT exercise. 

Salvage and Marine Firefighting 

(SMFF) Additions: The draft PREP 

Guidelines now include guidance for 

including SMFF providers and 

equipment into a plan holder’s exercise 

program, in response to regulatory 

requirements at 33 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 155.4052. These 

updates appear throughout the 

Guidelines in applicable sections. 

NTV Additions: The PREP Guidelines 

now include guidance for exercises for 

NTV response plans, in response to 

regulatory requirements at 33 CFR 

155.5060. 

Use of Alternative Worst Case 

Discharges (WCD) Scenarios during IMT 

Exercises: The draft Guidelines have 

been revised to allow for alternative 

WCD scenarios to be exercised. Some 

Facilities and Complex Facilities have 

more than one possible WCD, for 

example a storage tank and a pipeline 

section. Such plan holders are 

encouraged to consider adverse 

environmental impacts and to exercise 

more than just their largest volume 

WCD scenario. 

Exercise Frequency: The draft 

Guidelines have been updated to ensure 

consistency among NSCC agencies 

regarding the frequency of equipment 

deployment exercises. In particular, the 

frequency of deployment exercises for 

equipment that is owned by the facility, 

operated by Oil Spill Removal 

Organizations (OSROs), and listed in 

EPA-regulated plans has been changed 

from annually to semi-annually. This 

change will ensure the readiness of 

equipment that is not regularly used in 

actual spill response operations. 

Oil Spill Surveillance and Tracking 

Systems: USCG and BSEE regulations 

require plan holders to ensure available 

resources for oil spill surveillance and 

tracking. The PREP Guidelines establish 

a list of the types of equipment to be 

exercised during internal deployment 

exercises. This latest version of the 

Guidelines specifically identifies oil 

spill surveillance and tracking systems 

as a type of response equipment to be 

exercised during internal equipment 

deployment exercises in order to test the 

plan holders abilities to effectively 

support and direct other response 

activities and equipment, such as the 

use of dispersants, in-situ burning, 

mechanical recovery, shoreline 

protection, or wildlife recovery. 

Area-level Exercise Cycle: The 

exercise frequency for Area-level 

exercises has been changed from three 

to four years. This change applies only 

to the Area-level exercise cycle and does 

not change an industry plan holder’s 

exercise cycle as recommended in the 

draft PREP Guidelines, nor does it 

change the frequency of any industry 

plan holder exercises required by any 

oil spill planning regulations. 

B. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

General Comments 

Additional Time to Review the 

Guidelines: One commenter asked for an 

extended review period as they were not 

aware of the previous posting of the 

Guidelines in the Federal Register. 

Response: In addition to the comment 

in the docket, the NSCC has received 

numerous comments through other 

channels requesting additional time to 

review the Guidelines. This version of 

the Guidelines is being released today 

for public comment by the NSCC for a 

period of sixty days to accommodate the 

numerous requests. 

Aligning PREP Terminology and 

Processes with Other National Exercise 

Programs: Three commenters 

recommended aligning the PREP 

Guidelines with various elements of the 

Homeland Security Exercise and 

Evaluation Program (HSEEP). 

Response: The NSCC has decided to 

adopt certain terminology from HSEEP 

in order to better align the two 

programs, especially where HSEEP 

terms are more reflective of the lexicon 

used today within the National Incident 

Management System. As a result, the 

term ‘‘SMT’’ has been replaced by the 

term ‘‘IMT.’’ The term ‘‘TTX’’ has also 

been replaced with the term ‘‘exercise.’’ 

Recommendations for replacing other 

terms, such as changing deployment 

‘‘exercises’’ to ‘‘drills,’’ were not 

adopted because the NSCC did not want 

to introduce confusion by changing 

established, recognized terms. The 

NSCC also did not believe it was within 

the scope of the existing PREP mandate 

under OPA90 to completely adopt the 

HSEEP exercise design and evaluation 

processes. While the NSCC would 

encourage plan holders to consider 

adopting various HSEEP best practices, 

HSEEP procedures are currently not 

required by any of the Oil Pollution Act 

of 1990 (OPA90) implementing 

regulations established by the NSCC 

member agencies. 

Unified Command during PREP 

Exercises: One commenter stated that 

the definition of Unified Command in 

the PREP Guidelines was too broad and 

should be more constrained to agencies 

with primary jurisdiction in the 

incident. 

Response: The National Response 

Team (NRT) states in its Technical 

Assistance Document on Unified 

Command that for entities to be 

considered for inclusion within a 

Unified Command, they should have 

authority or functional responsibility for 

an area of responsibility that may be 

affected by an incident, as well as 

authority to command, coordinate, or 

manage a major aspect of the response. 

The NSCC has clarified the language 

within the definition to more closely 

align with the NRT guidance. 

Use of the Acronym ‘‘OSRO’’ in PREP 

Terminology: One commenter stated 

that the acronym ‘‘OSRO’’ was being 

used for two different terms and 

definitions, i.e., ‘‘Oil Spill Removal 

Organization’’ and ‘‘Oil Spill Response 

Organization,’’ which can create 

confusion. 

Response: The NSCC has removed the 

definition for Oil Spill Response 

Organization from the Guidelines. The 

acronym ‘‘OSRO’’ now only refers to an 

Oil Spill Removal Organization as 

defined in this latest version of the draft 

PREP Guidelines. 

Use of Electronic Messaging for 

Qualified Individual (QI) Notification 

Exercises (Section 2): One commenter 

requested that electronic messaging be 

allowed as a primary means for 

notifying QIs of a spill. 

Response: The NSCC has reviewed 

the language within the draft PREP 

Guidelines and has determined that the 

language will remain the same. The 

NSCC determined that voice should 

remain the primary means of 

communication because it quickly 

confirms that the notification has been 

received, and allows for immediate 

questions that may save time in 

emergencies; however, electronic 

messaging is an acceptable alternative if 

voice is unavailable. Confirmation of 

notification must be received with any 

communication method. 

Equipment Deployment Exercises and 

Lessons Learned Regarding Equipment 

Performance: One commenter noted a 

concern regarding the conditions under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 10707 

which equipment deployment exercises 

are conducted, as well as the lack of 

mechanisms in place to capture field 

deployment information. This 

commenter recommended that the 

USCG and BSEE develop a standard 

system to evaluate the performance of 

spill response equipment under a range 

of environmental conditions and 

capture that information in a lessons 

learned database. 

Response: The primary purpose of the 

PREP Guidelines is to provide guidance 

to industry on oil spill response 

exercises as required by OPA 90. The 

collection of information concerning the 

performance of spill response 

equipment in a database is outside the 

scope of these Guidelines. 

Dispersant-Related Objectives during 

PREP Exercises: One commenter 

submitted an extensive set of 

recommendations regarding the need to 

incorporate more specific dispersantrelated objectives in unannounced, 

deployment, IMT, and Area-level 

exercises. 

Response: Both BSEE and USCG 

regulations have requirements 

concerning dispersant capabilities for 

many of their plan holders. Most coastal 

Regional and Area Contingency Plans 

(ACPs) now have preauthorization 

agreements in place for the use of 

dispersants and in-situ burning. In order 

to ensure both government and industry 

preparedness to use all available 

response countermeasures, the NSCC 

incorporated additional recommended 

guidance regarding dispersants and insitu burning into the various exercise 

objectives. In particular, the NSCC 

included in the draft Guidelines an 

exercise objective for industry IMT 

exercises to prepare and submit usage 

plans for Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC) review and approval for each 

chemical, biological, or in-situ burning 

countermeasure that is cited as a 

response strategy within an Oil Spill 

Response Plan (OSRP) during the course 

of their exercise cycle. The NSCC has 

similarly incorporated a specific 

objective for Area-level IMT exercises to 

prepare usage plans and 

recommendations for FOSC review and 

approval for any chemical or biological 

countermeasures or in-situ burning that 

are identified as response strategies in 

the ACP. Finally, the NSCC has 

provided additional guidance necessary 

for properly conducting internal 

equipment deployment exercises of 

dispersant and in-situ burning 

equipment and procedures. 

Tidal Seal Boom Deployment: One 

commenter pointed out that under the 

previous Guidelines, only fifty feet of 

tidal seal boom need be deployed and 

that the revised version no longer 

included this information. 

Response: The statement ‘‘Only 50 

feet of this type of boom need be 

deployed’’ has been included in this 

latest version of the draft Guidelines. 

Government-Initiated Unannounced 

Exercises (GIUEs): One commenter drew 

attention to the fact that guidelines for 

GIUEs are agency-specific and that the 

NSCC gave a timeframe for when it will 

conduct unannounced exercises in the 

area. 

Response: The timeframe has been 

removed to harmonize the Guidelines. 

Area-Level Exercise Goals: One 

commenter noted that Area-level 

exercise goals appear aggressive and 

that some Area-level exercises approach 

a Spill of National Significance (SONS) 

in scope and complexity, and 

recommended that the Guidelines limit 

exercises to a single day. 

Response: NSCC members have 

determined that the language in the 

PREP Guidelines will remain the same. 

The NSCC does not want to limit the 

flexibility of Area Committees in 

designing exercises that meet their 

needs. 

Testing Geographic Response Plans 

(GRPs) during PREP Exercises: One 

commenter noted that GRPs and 

Geographic Response Strategies (GRSs), 

which have been incorporated into 

many ACPs, should be incorporated into 

PREP, tested during deployment 

exercises, and the resultant data 

collected to be used to improve the 

GRPs/GRSs. 

Response: The NSCC agrees that the 

targeted testing of certain GRPs and 

GRSs is a desirable preparedness 

activity that could improve the quality 

of the strategies contained within an 

ACP. The PREP Guidelines cover the 

testing of response strategies at Section 

2, Guiding Principles, Subpart J, Area 

Exercises. The NSCC encourages Area 

Committees and FOSCs to consider 

exercising and evaluating GRPs as part 

of the Area Exercise Cycle, subject to 

their discretion and available funding. 

Removal of PREP Documentation and 

Certification Forms from Appendix: One 

commenter raised concern about the 

removal of the forms from the PREP 

Guidelines for documentation for selfcertification. 

Response: The forms were removed 

from the PREP Guidelines to avoid the 

appearance that any particular form of 

documentation was required. While the 

forms are no longer in the Guidelines, 

industry may choose to use those or any 

other form or template, at their own 

discretion, for their internal 

documentation. 

Multi-Agency Regulated Facility and 

Vessel Comments 

Complex Facilities Regulated by More 

Than One Federal Agency: One 

commenter raised concern that complex 

facilities are addressed by WCD 

amounts and not in average most 

probable discharge (AMPD) or 

maximum most probable discharge 

(MMPD). 

Response: The NSCC has updated the 

definitions for AMPD and MMPD with 

language about complex facilities 

similar to WCD for complex facilities 

regulated by more than one federal 

agency. 

Agency Jurisdiction for PREP with 

Respect to Mobile Offshore Drilling 

Units (MODU) and Floating Production, 

Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) Vessels: 

One commenter asked for clarification 

of agency jurisdiction for PREP with 

respect to MODUs and FPSO vessels. 

Response: MODUs and FPSO vessels 

may be properly characterized as both 

offshore facilities and vessels. Multifunction offshore units such as FPSOs 

and MODUs are regulated by both USCG 

and BSEE with respect to these different 

functions, and each agency will have its 

own separate jurisdiction and regulatory 

oversight of these functional areas. In 

addition, the USCG and BSEE have 

entered into a general Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU), along with 

specific Memorandums of Agreement 

(MOAs), with respect to jurisdictional 

oversight. As such, it is up to each 

agency to provide guidance regarding 

the applicability of its regulations and 

PREP Guidelines. When MODUs and 

FPSO vessels are conducting operations 

as an offshore facility, the offshore 

facility PREP Guidelines overseen by 

BSEE apply. When MODUs and FPSO 

are operating as vessels, vessel PREP 

Guidelines overseen by USCG apply. 

BSEE and the USCG will work closely 

together to ensure a coordinated 

approach to PREP guidance and 

oversight with respect to these dual 

purpose entities whenever possible. 

USCG-Regulated Vessels and Marine 

Transportation-Related Facilities 

Comments 

Economic Analysis for SMFF 

Requirements: Multiple commenters 

requested that an economic analysis be 

conducted for the PREP Guidelines 

regarding the SMFF exercise 

requirements. 

Response: The PREP Guidelines are 

voluntary guidelines that only provide 

optional, recommended methods for 

complying with the existing regulatory 

requirements. As such, economic 

analyses are not required to be prepared 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

10708 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

2Economic analysis information is found in the 

preambles to the final rule for salvage and marine 

firefighting (73 FR 80618, December 31, 2008) and 

the final rule for nontank vessel response plans (78 

FR 60099, September 30, 2013). 

for the PREP Guidelines. The 

regulations themselves were subjected 

to an economic analysis prior to their 

promulgation.2

To address the concern about the 

economic burden of new exercise 

requirements on vessel owners and 

operators, several modifications have 

been made to the PREP Guidelines as 

follows: 

1. To comply with PREP Guidelines, 

vessels must conduct a Remote 

Assessment and Consultation Exercise 

for Vessels annually. PREP exercise 

requirements for Remote Assessment 

and Consultation Exercises have been 

more completely defined to improve the 

effectiveness of response planning for 

this service. 

2. PREP exercises for SMFF 

emergency lightering and MFF services 

do not apply to NTVs with an oil 

capacity under 250 barrels. 

3. Plan holders may claim credit for 

combined PREP exercises, incidents, 

and in the case of SMFF, they may 

claim PREP exercise credit for nonemergency equipment deployments 

during large-scale operations. 

NTV and SMFF Definitions: Multiple 

comments were received asking for 

clarification of the definitions related to 

new NTV and SMFF regulations. In 

addition, one commenter noted that the 

PREP Guidelines emphasize spill 

cleanup; however, the principle purpose 

of SMFF is spill prevention and the 

commenter requested that spill 

prevention language be included in the 

PREP Guidelines. 

Response: The following definitions 

have been reviewed and/or updated 

within the PREP Guidelines: Marine 

Firefighting (MFF) Organization, Plan 

Holder, Primary Resource Provider, 

Resource Provider, Salvage 

Organization, SMFF Provider, and 

SMFF Response Services. The USCG 

has replaced the words ‘‘spill response’’ 

with ‘‘response, and ‘‘spill 

management’’ with ‘‘incident 

management’’ throughout the document 

to reflect that certain exercises may not 

include a spill, but rather the prevention 

of a potential spill. 

Remote Assessment and Consultation 

Exercises for Vessels—Value: Multiple 

commenters questioned the value of the 

remote assessment and consultation 

exercise. Others suggested that the 

exercise be applied to Vessel Response 

Plans (VRPs) instead of vessels. 

Response: These exercises ensure that 

professional remote assessment and 

consultation services can be effectively 

activated within one hour of the time 

anyone in the response organization 

receives notification of the spill or 

potential spill. The early initiation of a 

situational assessment by a competent 

SMFF professional may prevent 

potential spills from turning into spills, 

and prevent actual spills from escalating 

in size. 

Because of the short timeframe 

involved and the vessel-specific 

response required, this exercise must be 

conducted by each vessel covered under 

the response plan. 

Remote Assessment and Consultation 

Exercises for Vessels—Participants: 

Several commenters expressed concern 

that the PREP Guidelines’ remote 

assessment and consultation exercise 

description of participants did not 

reflect the process outlined in the VRP 

which involves initial notification via 

the QI. In contrast, one commenter said 

that since SMFF contractual agreements 

are directly between the owner/operator 

and SMFF provider, the remote 

assessment and consultation exercise 

participants should be the SMFF 

provider and vessel owner/operator, 

excluding the QI. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, the PREP Guidelines’ new 

remote assessment and consultation 

exercise description reflects that 

participants should be consistent with 

the VRP for notification/activation and 

provision of remote assessment and 

consultation services. 

Emergency Procedures Exercises for 

Vessels—Participating Elements and 

Applicability to SMFF Providers: One 

commenter asked for clarification about 

whether or not the emergency 

procedures exercise includes SMFF 

resource providers. 

Response: The PREP Guidelines’ 

description of On-Board Emergency 

Procedures Exercise for vessels clearly 

indicates that the exercise applies to 

manned tank vessels and NTVs carrying 

oil as cargo or fuel, and that the 

participating elements are vessel 

personnel. Both the PREP On-Board 

Emergency Procedures Exercises and 

PREP’s Remote Assessment and 

Consultation Exercises are based on 

scenarios found in the shipboard 

response chapter of the VRP. These 

exercises may be conducted separately. 

PREP allows exercises to be combined, 

and a vessel owner/operator may choose 

to combine these two exercises to 

multiply the benefits obtained in terms 

of reinforcing the procedures to achieve 

quicker and more effective initial 

response to a spill or the threat of a 

spill. 

Incident Management Exercises for 

Vessels—Participating Elements: One 

commenter suggested that the plan 

holder be added to participating 

elements of the IMT exercise for vessels 

because plan holders should be aware of 

the IMT capabilities and their own 

requirements during an incident from 

one of their vessels. 

Response: The USCG agrees that the 

regulated party should be involved in 

the exercise, as reflected in the VRP. No 

change was necessary to reflect this. 

Shore-Based Salvage and ShoreBased MFF Exercises for Vessels— 

Separate or Combined Exercises: 

Multiple commenters requested that the 

shore-based salvage and shore-based 

MFF exercises not be held separately 

from IMT exercises. Some suggested 

that the salvage and MFF exercises be 

combined with each other since the 

services for each will, in most cases, be 

provided by the same primary resource 

provider. 

Response: To comply with the PREP 

Guidelines, salvage and MFF 

components of the VRP must be 

exercised annually, either separately or 

combined. IMT, salvage, and MFF 

exercises may also be combined. 

It is a basic PREP tenet that plan 

holders may claim credit for exercises 

when conducted in conjunction with 

other exercises, and a proper record is 

generated. Credit should be claimed for 

an actual response when the objectives 

of the exercise(s) are met, the response 

is evaluated, and a proper record is 

generated. Third party salvage and MFF 

teams may provide documentation of 

their incidents and exercises to their 

clients, and their clients may claim 

credit for the portions of the exercise 

that are applicable to their VRPs. 

Shore-Based Salvage and ShoreBased MFF Exercises for Vessels— 

Participating Elements: Several 

commenters requested that the vessel 

owner/operator be included as a 

participating element for the shorebased salvage and shore-based MFF 

exercises. 

Response: The management team, as 

established in a plan holder’s VRP, must 

participate in PREP annual shore-based 

exercises for salvage and for MFF. The 

vessel owner/operator is not necessarily 

part of the management team 

established in the VRP, but the vessel 

owner/operator (or representative) may 

participate in the exercise. 

SMFF Equipment Deployment 

Exercises for Vessels—Participating 

Elements: Multiple commenters 

requested removal of the requirement 

that all SMFF equipment-operating 

personnel participate in an annual 

equipment deployment exercises 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 10709 

because their routine work involves the 

deployment of this equipment. 

Response: SMFF providers may claim 

PREP exercise credit for operational 

equipment deployments if exercise 

objectives are met and a proper record 

is documented. This would include 

claiming credit for participation of all 

SMFF personnel that were involved in 

the operational deployment of the 

equipment. 

SMFF Equipment Deployment 

Exercises for Vessels—Exercise 

Documentation: One commenter 

recommended that all vessel plan 

holders identifying a contracted SMFF 

provider in their response plans must be 

able to document completion of SMFF 

equipment deployment requirements. 

Response: It is the vessel plan 

holder’s responsibility to ensure that the 

contracted SMFF provider completes 

PREP equipment deployment exercise 

requirements. All vessel plan holders 

identifying a contracted SMFF provider 

in their response plans may claim PREP 

credit for their SMFF provider’s 

equipment deployment exercises 

following receipt of exercise 

documentation from the provider. 

Equipment Deployment Exercises for 

Vessels—Regional Exercises: Some 

commenters recommended a regional 

approach to SMFF equipment 

deployment exercises involving 

exercises in the Atlantic, Gulf, and 

Pacific regions, conducted on a 

rotational basis once every three years. 

Response: When an SMFF provider 

proposes to conduct regional large-scale 

equipment deployment exercises to 

meet equipment deployment exercise 

requirements for their clients, the 

provider should request Alternative 

Planning Criteria (APC) approval from 

the USCG for the proposed exercises as 

described in 33 CFR 155.1055 and 

155.5067. 

All vessel plan holders identifying a 

contracted SMFF provider in their 

response plans may claim PREP credit 

for their SMFF provider’s equipment 

deployment exercises following receipt 

of exercise documentation from the 

provider. 

GIUEs—SMFF Services: Multiple 

commenters recommended that GIUEs 

not apply to SMFF services. 

Response: SMFF GIUE requirements 

have been removed from this revision of 

the PREP Guidelines, and will not apply 

to SMFF services. 

BSEE-Regulated Offshore Facilities 

Comments 

Notification Exercises for BSEERegulated Facilities: Three commenters 

raised concerns over the Notification 

Exercises for offshore facilities. One 

comment indicated that requiring 

notifications within two weeks of 

beginning operations was too vague. 

Another comment raised a concern that 

this two-week requirement may conflict 

with provisions established by plan 

holders in their OSRP. A third 

commenter suggested that the elements 

of information listed as objectives that 

must be communicated during 

Notification Exercises greatly exceeds 

what is currently contained within 

OSRPs or is required in the regulations. 

Response: Due to the criticality of the 

spill notification process to an effective 

response, BSEE strongly recommends 

testing the plan holder’s notification 

processes very early in their operational 

lifecycle, as well as preparing to gather 

and convey as much pertinent 

information as possible, in the early 

phase of an incident. BSEE has 

amended the language to clarify that for 

24-hour manned production facilities, a 

Notification Exercise should be 

conducted within two weeks of 

beginning production operations. BSEE 

did not amend the language that 

pertains to mobile drilling units in this 

section, as BSEE believes that OSRPs 

should align, to the maximum extent 

possible, with the guidance 

recommended in the PREP Guidelines, 

which provide important additional 

detail concerning the implementation of 

the regulations. BSEE acknowledges that 

the elements of information now 

requested for a Notification Exercise is 

more detailed than the information that 

is currently required by the regulations. 

As a result, BSEE has amended the 

language in this section to indicate that 

a plan holder should, rather than must, 

communicate as many of the elements 

of information as possible during the 

Notification Exercise. 

Deployment Exercises for Source 

Control, Subsea Containment, and 

Supporting Equipment: Two 

commenters raised concerns about 

exercises involving source control and 

subsea containment equipment. One 

commenter stated that there are high 

risks and time burdens associated with 

unannounced exercises of this 

equipment, and questioned their utility 

to demonstrate real readiness. One 

commenter stated that the costs 

associated with conducting annual or 

biennial deployment exercises for this 

equipment is too burdensome, and that 

such exercises should only be 

conducted when there has been a 

material change to equipment design, 

provider, or means of deployment, or at 

a minimum frequency of five years. 

Response: When source control, 

subsea containment, and supporting 

equipment are listed in an OSRP as a 

means for regaining control of a well 

and securing a threatened or actual 

discharge of oil, the PREP Guidelines 

allow for Regional BSEE Oil Spill 

Preparedness Division (OSPD) 

representatives to direct an OSRP holder 

to conduct a deployment exercise of this 

equipment. 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 semiannual or annual frequency as required 

for other spill response equipment. 

BSEE also does not intend to routinely 

conduct GIUEs that include the 

deployment of source control, subsea 

containment, and supporting equipment 

as part of the scope of a GIUE; however, 

BSEE has the authority and retains the 

prerogative to require GIUEs that have 

the deployment of source control, 

subsea containment, and/or supporting 

equipment as an element of that 

exercise, or to require deployment 

exercises of this equipment that are 

coordinated in advance but have some 

elements and objectives that will remain 

undisclosed until the commencement of 

the exercise. As organizations that 

provide source control, subsea 

containment, and supporting equipment 

cover multiple plan holders, credit for 

any deployment exercise successfully 

conducted by such a service provider 

will be extended to all plan holders who 

contract with the provider for those 

services. This extension of credit does 

not extend to IMT exercises where the 

management and oversight of source 

control activities must be exercised to 

ensure proper integration with other 

surface response activities and the 

overall management of the incident. 

These IMT exercises must include 

interaction between officials from a plan 

holder’s specific organization and its 

IMT, including those officials who 

would manage source control and 

subsea containment capabilities, and 

therefore should be conducted 

separately and singularly for each 

OSRP. 

GIUEs for BSEE-Regulated Facilities: 

One commenter requested clarification 

regarding whether there is an annual 

limit to the number of GIUEs that are 

conducted by BSEE. 

Response: The previous PREP 

Guidelines indicated that BSEE may 

exceed 50 GIUEs per year nationally. It 

is unlikely that BSEE would 

conceivably conduct 50 or more GIUEs 

in any given year. There is no specified 

limit to the number of GIUEs that BSEE 

may conduct in a calendar year. BSEE 

will use a number of factors that vary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

10710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

from year to year in order to determine 

the need to conduct GIUEs, and will use 

risk-based decision-making tools 

whenever possible. The language in the 

revised Guidelines has been amended to 

indicate that the number of GIUEs 

conducted by BSEE will be determined 

by the BSEE OSPD Chief, and does not 

make any reference to a specific number 

that may be conducted in a given year. 

V. Request for Comments 

The NSCC members request public 

comments on the updated draft PREP 

Guidelines, which are available in 

docket USCG–2011–1178 as described 

in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

Dated: February 23, 2015. 

P.J. Brown, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Response Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04160 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5828–N–09] 

Federal Property Suitable as Facilities 

To Assist the Homeless 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies 

unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 

surplus Federal property reviewed by 

HUD for suitability for use to assist the 

homeless. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Juanita Perry, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 

Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 

20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY 

number for the hearing- and speechimpaired (202) 708–2565 (these 

telephone numbers are not toll-free), or 

call the toll-free Title V information line 

at 800–927–7588. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and 

section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney 

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

11411), as amended, HUD is publishing 

this Notice to identify Federal buildings 

and other real property that HUD has 

reviewed for suitability for use to assist 

the homeless. The properties were 

reviewed using information provided to 

HUD by Federal landholding agencies 

regarding unutilized and underutilized 

buildings and real property controlled 

by such agencies or by GSA regarding 

its inventory of excess or surplus 

Federal property. This Notice is also 

published in order to comply with the 

December 12, 1988 Court Order in 

National Coalition for the Homeless v. 

Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503– 

OG (D.D.C.). 

Properties reviewed are listed in this 

Notice according to the following 

categories: Suitable/available, suitable/

unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, 

and unsuitable. The properties listed in 

the three suitable categories have been 

reviewed by the landholding agencies, 

and each agency has transmitted to 

HUD: (1) Its intention to make the 

property available for use to assist the 

homeless, (2) its intention to declare the 

property excess to the agency’s needs, or 

(3) a statement of the reasons that the 

property cannot be declared excess or 

made available for use as facilities to 

assist the homeless. 

Properties listed as suitable/available 

will be available exclusively for 

homeless use for a period of 60 days 

from the date of this Notice. Where 

property is described as for ‘‘off-site use 

only’’ recipients of the property will be 

required to relocate the building to their 

own site at their own expense. 

Homeless assistance providers 

interested in any such property should 

send a written expression of interest to 

HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. 

Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Room 5B–17, Parklawn 

Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, 

MD 20857, (301)-443–2265 (This is not 

a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the 

interested provider an application 

packet, which will include instructions 

for completing the application. In order 

to maximize the opportunity to utilize a 

suitable property, providers should 

submit their written expressions of 

interest as soon as possible. For 

complete details concerning the 

processing of applications, the reader is 

encouraged to refer to the interim rule 

governing this program, 24 CFR part 

581. 

For properties listed as suitable/to be 

excess, that property may, if 

subsequently accepted as excess by 

GSA, be made available for use by the 

homeless in accordance with applicable 

law, subject to screening for other 

Federal use. At the appropriate time, 

HUD will publish the property in a 

Notice showing it as either suitable/

available or suitable/unavailable. 

For properties listed as suitable/

unavailable, the landholding agency has 

decided that the property cannot be 

declared excess or made available for 

use to assist the homeless, and the 

property will not be available. 

Properties listed as unsuitable will 

not be made available for any other 

purpose for 20 days from the date of this 

Notice. Homeless assistance providers 

interested in a review by HUD of the 

determination of unsuitability should 

call the toll free information line at 1– 

800–927–7588 for detailed instructions 

or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at 

the address listed at the beginning of 

this Notice. Included in the request for 

review should be the property address 

(including zip code), the date of 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

landholding agency, and the property 

number. 

For more information regarding 

particular properties identified in this 

Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing 

sanitary facilities, exact street address), 

providers should contact the 

appropriate landholding agencies at the 

following addresses: Agriculture: Ms. 

Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, 

Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., 

Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, 

(202)–720–8873; Air Force: Mr. Robert 

E. Moriarty, P.E., AFCEC/CI, 2261 

Hughes Avenue, Ste. 155, JBSA 

Lackland, TX 78236–9853; NASA: Mr. 

Frank T. Bellinger, Facilities 

Engineering Division, National 

Aeronautics & Space Administration, 

Code JX, Washington, DC 20546, (202)– 

358–1124; (These are not toll-free 

numbers). 

Dated: February 19, 2015. 

Brian P. Fitzmaurice, 

Director, Division of Community Assistance, 

Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. 

TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY 

PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT 

FOR 02/27/2015 

Suitable/Available Properties 

Building 

Wyoming 

Jackson V.I.C. 

644 N. Cache St. 

Jackson WY 83001 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201510011 

Status: Excess 

Directions: TN825007, RPUID–B1252.002791 

Comments: off-site removal only; 48+ yrs. 

old; 1,472 sq. ft.; office; contamination ; 

wood stretchered; contact Agriculture for 

more inf. 

Bridger-Teton Supervisor’s Office 

340 N Cache St. 

Jackson WY 83001 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201510012 

Status: Excess 

Comments: off-site removal only; 50+ yrs. 

old; 10,080 sq. ft.; office; contamination; 

wood stretchered; contact Agriculture for 

more inf. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES