Document ID: USCG-2017-0894-0018
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Notice
Title: Update to the 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines
Posted Date: 2018-10-02T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49563-49566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2017-0894]
RIN 1625-ZA37

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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abbreviations

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

II. Background

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

III. Summary of Comments and Changes

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

[[Page 49564]]

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

Coast Guard Response to Industry Comments

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

[[Page 49565]]

when it verifies compliance with exercise requirements during vessel 
inspections.

Environmental Protection Agency-Regulated Facilities Comments

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

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement-Regulated Offshore 
Facilities Comments

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

[[Page 49566]]

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

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

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

IV. Cost Savings Analysis

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

V. Public Availability of 2016.1 PREP Guidelines

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

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