156 



17836 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 



Caucus also recommended that the 

 Atlantic Strike Team be redeployed to 

 an area to the northeast of its present 

 location. Deployment decisions are 

 witliin the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast 

 G'jard. The Couiicil has therefore 

 referred this recommendation to the U.S. 

 Coast Guard. 



The International Association of Fire 

 Chiefs expressed concern that the Plan 

 unduly and excessively interfered with 

 local agency authority to control and 

 suoervise spill response eSorts. 

 particularly with respect to responses by 

 local fire and dvil defense officials. A 

 number of changes were made in 

 response to this criticism in order to 

 highlight the importance of coordination 

 with local officials and to emphasize 

 that the Plan covers only the Federal 

 response. See 451510.23(a), 1510 J4(f), 

 1510.38(d), 1510.37(a)(1) and 1510.42(a). 

 Concern was also expressed that 

 51510.57(a) authorizes the OSC to keep 

 the fire chief and dvil defense offidals 

 out of the affected area. That section is 

 not intended to give the OSC such 

 authority. Local contingency plana, 

 particularly with the cooperation of 

 local fire and dvil defense offidals, ars 

 to be developed in a manner consistent 

 with local fire and disaster plans and 

 requirements. Sea 51S10.42(a). 



One comment recommended 

 expansion and darification of the Plan 

 concerning the relationship between a 

 responsible discharger (a discharger 

 who is taking proper action to dean up 

 the spill) and the Federal government 

 The comment recommended coverage of 

 at least four points which are listed 

 below with responses: 



(1) What Is the continuing role of the 

 OSC if the discharger is in charge of the 

 clean up operation? This question is 

 addressed by 5Sl510.21(a) and 

 1510.52(c) which provides that the OSC 

 has a continuing responsibility to 

 monitor dean up actions being taken by 

 the discharger and to provide advice. 



(2) Does the OSC continue as the 

 government spokesman for all levels of 

 government? This is addressed in the 

 affirmative by 55l510.5(k) (definition of 

 OSC), 1510.21(a) and Section 1510.52(c). 



(3) How is government support and 

 assistance obtained by the discharger 

 (e.g. sdentific support)? This is 

 addressed by 551510.52(c). 1510.63(a)(3), 

 1510.63(b)(3)(u) and 1510.64. The OSCs 

 monitoring and surveillance duties 

 includes providing advice and 

 assistance to dischargers concerning 

 proper cleanup and removal actions. 

 Dischargers are encouraged to seek 

 sdentific support advice through the 

 CSC on matters not already covered by 

 this Plan and annexes, and the 



applicable regional and local 

 contingency plans. 



(4) How are relations with the news 

 media and public handled? Secti'on 

 1510.37 provides for relations widi the . 

 news media and for public information 

 where there is a Federal response to a 

 spill under the Plan. The Plan, of course, 

 cannot govern the manner or content of 

 information provided by the discharger. 

 Where die discharger retains control of 

 the deanup and removal actions, the 

 public Information and news media 

 provisions in 51510.37 will not apply; 

 they only apply where a Federal 

 response is initiated under this Plan. 



For the reasons given above, and 

 because the NRT does not believe any 

 si^iificant problems exist in the 

 relationship between the discharger and 

 the Federal government that are not 

 already addressed in the Plan, the NRT 

 recommended that no additional 

 provisions be added to the Plan 

 concerning these points. The Council 

 deferred to the NRTs recommendations. 



Several comments from the oil 

 industry recommended that the Plan 

 require die RRT to send copies of dielr 

 activity reports (under 51510J4(g)(9)) to 

 the oil industry. These reports are 

 available to the pubUc the American 

 Petroleum Institute representative 

 attending NRT meetings as an observer 

 ' will be able to obtain copies of such 

 reports and provide for appropriate 

 distribution to the oil iBdustry. 



One comment recommended deletion 

 of the term "Coker Feed" in Annex VO 

 as being inaccurate. This 

 recommendation was adopted. 



E. Additional Change* Based on Federal 

 Interagency Comment! and NRT 

 Racommendadona 



Following publication of the proposed 

 revisions to the National Contingency 

 Plan federal agency review resulted in a 

 number of additional changes of 

 essentially a darifying natiire. These are 

 summarized below. 



The distinction between Federal 

 primary and advisory agendes under 

 the Plan has been elhninated since over 

 a period of time it has become 

 meaningless. All Federal agendes uinder 

 the Plan are now referred to as 

 partidpating agendes. See }S1510.5, 

 1510.22. 1510.32. 



Provisions governing referrals and 

 appeals of dedsions by the Regional 

 Response Teams have been darified. 

 See 551510.2(10). 1510J2 (m) and (n).. 



Descriptions of Federal agency 

 expertise and roles under the Plan have 

 been further updated. See 551510.4, 

 1510.22(b). 1510.64(c), and Annex IH. 



Section 1510.37 concerning the public 

 Information network haa been 



substantially revised both in response to 

 public comments and to incorporate 

 experience gained by die NRT during 

 1979 concerning the Campeche Bay and 

 other oil spills affecting U.S. waters in 

 the Gulf of Mexico. 



Section 1510.64 relating to Special 

 Forces has been revised in response to 

 public comments and NRT 

 recommendations, particularly with 

 respect to clarifying the responsibilities 

 of NOAA. EPA and die Department of 

 the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) 

 in providing sdentific support 



F. Regulatory Analyses 



Because the Plan governs the Federal 

 government's response to oil and 

 hazardous substances pollution and 

 does not regulate private activities, and 

 since the revisions to the Plan are 

 primarily of a simplifying and updating 

 nature, the Council, supported by a 

 recommendation from the NRT,- 

 determined diat a regulatory analysis 

 under E.0. 12044 was not required in 

 conjunction with the publication of the 

 Final revisions. The final revisions to 

 the National Contingency Plan 

 implement die policy and other 

 requirements of Executive Order 12044 

 (Improving Government Regulations) to 

 the fullest extent possible. The revised 

 Plan has been simplified and 

 substantially rewritten in plain 

 language. In reviewing the proposed 

 revisions the Council gave careful 

 attention to minimiring any burden on 

 thepublic. 



The determinations required by 

 Section 2(d) of the Order have been 

 made by the Council and are available 

 on request 



G. Conclusion 



We could not of course, adopt every 

 suggestion that was made on revisions 

 to die National Contingency Plan. We 

 have bried to respond to the major 

 concerns that were expressed. We are 

 confident that any issues which arise in 

 the future can be resolved through 

 recommendations by the public state 

 and local governments and the 

 partidpating agendes to die Regional 

 Response Teams and the National 

 Response Team. The National Response 

 Team will continue to supervise 

 implementation of the Plan and, where 

 appropriate, make recommendations to 

 the Council for additional revisions. 



We appredate the efforts of Uie many 

 people who partidpated in developing 

 and refining the revisions to the Plan. 

 GusSpalh. 

 Chairman. 



Part ISIO is revised to read as set 



forth below: ._ „ ., . : 



