Document ID: USCG-2016-0262-0003
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-05-10T04:00Z

Supporting Statement

for

Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int’l), and

Additional Response Requirements for Prince William Sound, Alaska 

OMB No.: 1625-0066

COLLECTION INSTRUMENT: CG-6083 & VRP Express Search Tool

A.  Justification

1.  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.  

Facility Response Plan (FRP):  Section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OPA 90) amended section 311(j) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWCPA)(33 U.S.C. 1321 et. seq.).  It requires the
owner or operator of a facility to prepare and submit “a plan for
responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case
discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge of oil or
hazardous substances.”  This requirement applies to any offshore
facility and to an onshore facility that "because of its location, could
reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by
discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or
the exclusive economic zone."  FRP requirements are found in Title 33
CFR 154 subparts F, H and I.  

Vessel Response Plan (VRP):  Section 4202(a)(6) of the OPA 90 amended
section 311(j) of the FWPCA.  It requires that vessels carrying oil in
bulk as cargo and operating in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction
prepare and submit a written response plan for a worst case discharge of
oil or hazardous substances.  VRP requirements are found in 33 CFR 155
subparts D, F, G and I.  

Nontank Vessel Response Plan (NTVRP):  Section 701 of the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293), as amended by
section 608 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006
(Pub. L. 109-241) (CG&MTA 2004/2006), amended section 311(a) and (j) of
the FWPCA.  It requires that nontank vessels of 400 gross tons and above
which carry oil as fuel for propulsion and operating in navigable waters
of the U.S. prepare and submit a written NTVRP for a worst case
discharge.  NTVRP requirements are found in 33 CFR 155 subpart J. 

Prince William Sound (PWS):  Section 5005 of the OPA 90 establishes
requirements for a tanker operating in PWS and loading cargo at the
Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), in addition to those required by
section 4202(a)(6) of OPA 90.  This rule ensures that response plans
provide for pre-positioned oil spill containment and removal equipment,
an oil spill removal organization, training of local residents in oil
spill removal and containment techniques, practice exercises, and
periodic testing and certification of equipment.  PWS requirements are
found in 33 CFR 154 subpart G and 33 CFR 155 subpart E. 

Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan/Shipboard Marine Pollution
Emergency Plan (SOPEP/SMPEP):  The information collection requirements
described below are necessary to comply with the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1901 et. seq.).  This section
implements Regulation 37 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 for United States
flag ships.  It requires every oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above
and every ship other than an oil tanker of 400 gross tons and above to
carry on board an approved SOPEP.  The SOPEP requirements are found in
33 CFR 151.26-28.  Additionally, this section implements Regulation 17
of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 for United States flag ships.  It requires
every ship of 150 gross tons and above that carries noxious liquid
substances (NLS) in bulk to carry on board an approved SMPEP. The SMPEP
requirements are found in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) 03-04.  

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Protection 

Recovery 

Coast Guard

Maritime Safety

Protection of the Natural Resources

Prevention Policy & Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Safety:  Eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
commercial maritime operations.

Human and Natural Environment:  Eliminate environmental damage
associated with maritime transportation and operations on and around the
nation’s waterways.

2.  Purpose of the information collection.  

FRP, VRP and NTVRP:  The purpose of OPA 90 is to reduce the number of
oil and hazardous substance spills and to minimize the impact of the oil
and hazardous substance spills when they do occur in U.S. waters.  The
requirements for preparation, submission, and approval of FRPs, VRPs and
NTVRPs are central to the contingency planning elements of the FWPCA. 
The FRP, VRP & NTVRP requirements are necessary to ensure that vessels
entering U.S. waters and certain facilities are adequately prepared to
respond in the event of an incident involving the spill of oil or a
hazardous substance.  Without the requirements some operators may not
maintain the necessary internal resources (effective planning, training,
drilling, etc.) or external resources (adequate response capability) to
meet a major intent of FWPCA—to reduce the consequences of an oil or
hazardous substance spill when it occurs.

Submission of response plans to the Coast Guard (CG) for approval is
considered the most efficient way to ensure compliance and necessary for
the CG to meet its obligations under OPA 90/FWPCA. 

PWS:  The additional requirements in section 5005 of OPA 90, for trained
personnel and pre-positioned response equipment, reflect the particular
environmental sensitivity of PWS.  Without these requirements for
tankers operating in PWS and loading cargo at TAPS, it is believed that
sufficient response resources would not be available or be properly
maintained to clean up a future oil spill.  Certification and testing of
response equipment helps ensure the readiness of this equipment for a
future response.

SOPEP/SMPEP:  The purpose of the requirements is to improve response
capabilities and minimize the environmental impact of oil or NLS
discharges from ships.  Without the requirements, there is a greater
likelihood of a vessel which is not prepared to handle an unauthorized
discharge of oil having a spill and causing a major environmental
incident.  The submission and approval of these plans ensures that
vessels have in place an appropriate plan that deals with such an
occurrence.

3.  Consideration of the use of improved technology.  

For FRP and PWS, information may be submitted by mail, fax or
electronically via e-mail to the Captain of the Port (COTP) at the local
CG Sector Office.  Contact info for CG Sector Offices can be found at—
  HYPERLINK "http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/" 
http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/ .  For VRP, NTVRP and SOPEP/SMPEP,
information may be submitted to CG Headquarters by mail, fax or
electronically via e-mail or a website.  E-submissions are via  
HYPERLINK "http://www.Homeport.uscg.mil/vrpexpress" 
www.Homeport.uscg.mil/vrpexpress .  At this time, we estimate that 98%
of reporting requirements are done electronically. 

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.  

FRP:  In addition to the CG’s marine transportation-related (MTR) FRP
requirements, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has FRP
regulations.  EPA response plan requirements affect certain
non-transportation-related facilities that have the potential to
discharge oil into the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of the
U.S. and meet certain storage capacity thresholds.  EPA's regulations do
not apply to equipment or operations of onshore marine
transportation-related facilities that are subject to the authority and
control of the Department of Homeland Security (delegated to the CG). 
However, certain businesses have both transportation-related and
non-transportation-related components, such as petroleum bulk terminals
that have storage tanks and transfer petroleum to and from vessels. 
These businesses are subject to both the CG and EPA regulation.  These
facilities are designated complexes.  To avoid duplicative paperwork
burdens on complexes, the CG and EPA work together to ensure that their
response plan requirements and response plan formats are consistent.  As
a result, facilities are able to comply with both response plan
requirements with a single response plan, thereby mitigating duplication
of paperwork related burdens.  

PWS:  The information being required is unique.  There is no known
duplication of filing requirements with other Federal information
collections.

NTVRP:  The information required is unique.  Section 701 of the CG&MTA
2004/2006 amended 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(a) and (j) requiring that NTVRPs
be submitted consistent with other plans required by the FWPCA.  

SOPEP/SMPEP and VRP:  The information required is unique.  MARPOL 73/78
requires specific response planning.  These requirements work in
conjunction with, and not in duplication of, the VRP requirements
discussed elsewhere in this supporting statement.

5.  Methods to minimize the burden to small businesses if involved.  

FRP:  Although the CG regulation has certain reduced requirements for
smaller facilities, these are primarily not paperwork related.  However,
because of the nature of the information collection requirements, the
level of effort to prepare the FRP is estimated to vary directly with
the size and complexity of the facility.  As a result, smaller
facilities should incur a lesser burden than larger facilities.

Furthermore, in drafting OPA 90, it was clearly Congress' intent that
certain small facilities be subject to the same response planning
requirements as large facilities.  Specifically, in discussing the
selection of facilities that could cause "substantial harm" to the
environment (i.e., those subject to the information collection
activities), the OPA Conference report states:

The criteria should not result in the selection of facilities based
solely on the size or age of storage tanks.  Specifically, the selection
criteria should not necessarily omit those smaller facilities that are
near major drinking water supplies or that are near environmentally
sensitive areas. H. Rep. No. 101-653, 101st Cong. 2nd Sess. 1990, p.
150.

VRP:  Due to the nature of the industry, smaller entities tend to own
smaller vessels, e.g., barges rather than large tankers.  The reporting
requirements should be less for smaller vessels; vessels that have fewer
personnel, carry less cargo, and require less response capability. 
Vessels that carry oil as secondary cargo, i.e., fishing vessels,
offshore supply vessels and towing vessels, require a less comprehensive
VRP and have reduced resubmission requirements.  

NTVRP:  The FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)) as amended by CG&MTA 2004/2006
requires the same level of information from these vessels.  

PWS:  The requirements for smaller vessels are less because they have
fewer personnel on board, carry less oil, and will require less response
equipment than larger vessels.  In addition, non-TAPS vessels (most of
which are smaller) are eliminated from the requirements.  

SOPEP/SMPEP:  The small business burden should be minimized as few small
entities own ships of the gross tonnage to which this regulation
applies.  

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were done less
frequently.  

FRP, VRP and NTVRP:  The CG recognizes the need to minimize the burden
of any information collection to the extent permitted under the
requirements of the FWPCA as amended by OPA 90 and the CG&MTA 2004/2006.
 Section 4202(a)(6) of OPA 90 requires facilities and vessels to update
the response plan periodically, and resubmit for approval of each
significant change.  Under the regulation, facilities and vessels would
be required to: conduct an annual review of the response plan and submit
changes to the CG; or, if no changes are necessary, submit a letter
stating that the review has taken place.

The CG has determined that requiring facilities and vessels to review
and update their response plans less frequently than once a year would
undermine the intent of the FWPCA, which is to ensure that all
facilities and vessels have an up-to-date plan at all times.  For
example, contact lists of spill response personnel may require revision
every year, and possibly more frequently.  Because the majority of
information collection activities (in terms of both hours and cost)
would involve initial preparation of the response plan, reducing the
frequency of the annual information collection activities would not
significantly reduce the overall burden of the information collection
activities required under these regulations.

PWS:  Less frequent oversight and review of plans and equipment may
result in inadequate equipment and poorly trained personnel.

SOPEP/SMPEP:  Because the plan must be used in an emergency, less
frequent review and submission could result in outdated information
impeding a response.

7.  Special collection circumstances.  

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). 

8.  Consultation.  

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.  

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.  

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents. 

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.  

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimate of annual hour and cost burdens to respondents.  

The estimated number of annual respondents is 8,235.  

The estimated number of annual responses is 8,271.  

The estimated hour burden is 75,395 hours.  

The estimated cost burden is $6,453,238.  

FRP:  There are a number of MTR oil transfer facilities in the U.S. that
are subject to the FRP requirements.  It is assumed that the number of
facilities remains constant due to the mature nature of the industry. 
However, facilities are sold and new ones are built as older ones are
taken out of service, thus we assume that 10% of the facility population
will submit new FRPs each year.  The FRP paperwork requirements consist
of the preparation and submission of new FRPs, the annual review of
existing FRPs, and the 5-year resubmit of existing FRPs.  We assume it
takes 100 hours for a new plan, 10 hours for an annual review and 15
hours for a 5-year resubmit.  The calculations for the FRP
reporting/recordkeeping elements are found in Appendix A.  

VRP & NTVRP:  There are a number of tank and nontank vessels that are
subject to the VRP requirements.  It is assumed that the number of
vessels remains constant due to the mature nature of the industry. 
However, vessels are sold and new ones are built as older ones are taken
out of service, thus we assume that 10% of the vessel population will
submit new VRPs each year.  The VRP paperwork requirements consist of
the preparation and submission of new VRPs, the annual review of
existing VRPs, and the 5-year resubmit of existing VRPs.  We assume it
takes 80 hours for a new plan, 8 hours for an annual review and 12 hours
for a 5-year resubmit.  

The VRP paperwork includes documentation of salvage and marine
firefighting (SMFF) resources/equipment.  Some SMFF resource providers
have voluntarily elected to annually submit SMFF resource/equipment
information to the CG to pre-vet their companies.  These SMFF resource
providers also undergo a voluntary quarterly review/verification of
their resources/equipment.  We assume it takes 1,200 hours for an annual
submission and 300 hours for a quarterly review/verification per SMFF
resource provider.  For VRP planholders that reference a SMFF resource
provider’s documentation in place of selecting and documenting SMFF
resources on their own, we assume that the VRP burden is reduced.  In
this instance, we assume it takes 60 hours for a new plan, 6 hours for
an annual review and 9 hours for a 5-year resubmit.  In addition to the
above VRP elements, the regulations also permit certain
alternatives/waivers.  There are one-time port waivers (33 CFR
155.1025(e)), Alternative Planning Criteria (33 CFR 155.1065(f)) and
SMFF Waivers (33 CFR 155.4055).  We assume it take 1 hour, 5 hours and 2
hours respectively.  Additionally, the VRP Express has a Search Tool to
allow individuals to find VRP data.  We estimate that the tool is used
10 times per day and that it takes about 10 minutes (0.167 hours) to
use.  The calculations for all the VRP reporting/recordkeeping elements
are found in Appendix B.  

PWS:  It is assumed that there is one spill response organization
working in PWS.  It serves the TAPS traffic and includes large tankers
receiving oil at the Valdez terminal.  The calculations for the PWS
reporting/recordkeeping elements are found in Appendix C.

SOPEP/SMPEP:  There are a number of tank and nontank vessels that are
subject to these requirements.  It is assumed that the number of vessels
remains constant due to the mature nature of the industry.  However, as
vessels are sold and new ones are built as older ones are taken out of
service, there we assume that 10% of the vessel population will submit
new plans each year.  The paperwork requirements consist of the
preparation and submission of new plans, the annual review of existing
plans, and the 5-year resubmit of existing plans.  We assume it takes 40
hours for a new plan, 4 hours for an annual review and 6 hours for a
5-year resubmit.  For VRP planholders that voluntarily elect to submit a
combined VRP with their SOPEP/SMPEP, we assume that there is no added
burden for the VRP and that the burden is reduced for the SOPEP/SMPEP. 
In this instance, we assume it takes 20 hours for a new plan, 2 hours
for an annual review and 3 hours for a 5-year resubmit.  The
calculations for the SOPEP/SMPEP reporting/recordkeeping elements are
found in Appendix D.  

Form CG-6083:  The CG created form “Application for Approval/Revision
of Vessel Response Plans” (CG-6083) to provide for an easier and
clearer method to request a specific CG review on a VRP or SOPEP/SMPEP. 
We estimate that approximately 50% of submissions voluntarily use this
form.  It takes approximately 10 minutes to complete form.  However, as
use of the form replaces the need to draft a letter explaining what
action is requested, there is no change in the VRP or SOPEP/SMPEP burden
related to the form.  

Summary:  A summary of respondents, responses, hour and cost burden is
found in Appendix E.  

13.  Total annualized capital and start-up costs.  

There are no annualized capital and start-up costs associated with this
information collection.

14.  Estimates of annualized Federal Government costs.  

FRP:  The CG estimates about 18 full time equivalents (FTE) are utilized
annually for this program to process, review, and approve FRPs.  This
includes the time incurred to conduct inspections, oversee drills, and
perform other tasks to implement the program.  

VRP, NTVRP and SOPEP/SMPEP:  The CG estimates that to administer the
VRP, NTVRP and SOPEP/SMPEP program, the CG utilizes 3 FTE and a private
support contract for administrative and technical requirements. 

PWS:  The CG estimates the cost to administer the PWS requirements is
about .2 FTE annually.  

Summary:  The Federal government cost is $4,600,400.  A summary is found
in Appendix F.

15.  Explain the reasons for the change in burden.  

The change in burden is an ADJUSTMENT.  The decrease in burden is
primarily due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of FRP
respondents.  The change is based on a new population screening criteria
to eliminate duplicative and inactive bulk liquid waterfront facilities.
 The increase in responses is primarily due to the inclusion of
responses related to the VRP Express Search Tool.  The search tool
feature allows the public to obtain VRP-related info via a webpage.  The
VRP Express Search Tool is new voluntary reporting element.  The
methodology for calculating burden remains unchanged.  

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.  

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.  

The CG will display the expiration date for OMB approval of this
information collection.

18.   Exception to the certification statement.  

The CG does not request an exception to the certification of this
information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods  

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.  

  Assumed to be 2,000 hours per FTE for a Lieutenant (O-3) with wage
rates (in-gov’t) taken from COMDTINST 7310.1(series).  

  Assumed to be 2,000 hours each for one Lieutenant Commander (O-4), one
GS-13 and  one E-6 with wage rates (in-gov’t) taken from COMDTINST
7310.1(series).  

  Assumed to be 400 hours for a Lieutenant (O-3) assigned to the CG
Marine Safety Unit in Valdez with wage rates (in-gov’t) taken from
COMDTINST 7310.1(series).  

1625-0066 

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  6