{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, Improvements in Preparing Oil Spill Facility Response Plans","title":"Improvements in Preparing Oil Spill Facility Response Plans","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"Improvements in Preparing Oil Spill Facility Response Plans Document 2014-01515.pdf (199.33 KB) PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to remind all onshore oil pipeline operators of the need to update FRPs every five years from the date of last submission or the last approval according to its significant and substantial designation. When updating their FRPs, operators should utilize Appendix A Part 194—Guidelines f","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-improvements-preparing-oil-spill-facility-response-plans-191f27ba.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-improvements-preparing-oil-spill-facility-response-plans-191f27ba.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-improvements-preparing-oil-spill-facility-response-plans-191f27ba","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulatory-compliance/phmsa-guidance/improvements-preparing-oil-spill-facility-response-plans","body":"Improvements in Preparing Oil Spill Facility Response Plans\n\nDocument\n\n 2014-01515.pdf (199.33 KB)\n\n        PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to remind all onshore oil pipeline operators of the need to update FRPs every five years from the date of last submission or the last approval according to its significant and substantial designation. When updating their FRPs, operators should utilize Appendix A Part 194—Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans and submit them electronically to PHMSA.\n\n          Effective Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n4532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Notices\nehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES\nexamination every year (a) by an\nophthalmologist or optometrist who\nattests that the vision in the better eye\ncontinues to meet the requirements in\n49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a\nmedical examiner who attests that the\nindividual is otherwise physically\nqualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that\neach individual provides a copy of the\nophthalmologist’s or optometrist’s\nreport to the medical examiner at the\ntime of the annual medical examination;\nand (3) that each individual provide a\ncopy of the annual medical certification\nto the employer for retention in the\ndriver’s qualification file and retains a\ncopy of the certification on his/her\nperson while driving for presentation to\na duly authorized Federal, State, or local\nenforcement official. Each exemption\nwill be valid for two years unless\nrescinded earlier by FMCSA. The\nexemption will be rescinded if: (1) The\nperson fails to comply with the terms\nand conditions of the exemption; (2) the\nexemption has resulted in a lower level\nof safety than was maintained before it\nwas granted; or (3) continuation of the\nexemption would not be consistent with\nthe goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.\n31136(e) and 31315.\nBasis for Renewing Exemptions\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an\nexemption may be granted for no longer\nthan two years from its approval date\nand may be renewed upon application\nfor additional two year periods. In\naccordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and\n31315, each of the 41 applicants has\nsatisfied the entry conditions for\nobtaining an exemption from the vision\nrequirements (66 FR 17743; 66 FR\n30502; 66 FR 33990; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR\n35772; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR\n48989; 70 FR 30999; 70 FR 33937; 70 FR\n41811; 70 FR 42615; 70 FR 46567; 72 FR\n32705; 72 FR 40359; 72 FR 40360; 74 FR\n26461; 74 FR 34074; 74 FR 34630; 74 FR\n34632; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR 40445; 76 FR\n44653; 76 FR 49531; 76 FR 50318; 76 FR\n53710). Each of these 41 applicants has\nrequested renewal of the exemption and\nhas submitted evidence showing that\nthe vision in the better eye continues to\nmeet the requirement specified at 49\nCFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision\nimpairment is stable. In addition, a\nreview of each record of safety while\ndriving with the respective vision\ndeficiencies over the past two years\nindicates each applicant continues to\nmeet the vision exemption\nrequirements.\nThese factors provide an adequate\nbasis for predicting each driver’s ability\nto continue to drive safely in interstate\ncommerce. Therefore, FMCSA\nconcludes that extending the exemption\nfor each renewal applicant for a period\nof two years is likely to achieve a level\nof safety equal to that existing without\nthe exemption.\nRequest for Comments\nFMCSA will review comments\nreceived at any time concerning a\nparticular driver’s safety record and\ndetermine if the continuation of the\nexemption is consistent with the\nrequirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and\n31315. However, FMCSA requests that\ninterested parties with specific data\nconcerning the safety records of these\ndrivers submit comments by February\n27, 2014.\nFMCSA believes that the\nrequirements for a renewal of an\nexemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and\n31315 can be satisfied by initially\ngranting the renewal and then\nrequesting and evaluating, if needed,\nsubsequent comments submitted by\ninterested parties. As indicated above,\nthe Agency previously published\nnotices of final disposition announcing\nits decision to exempt these 41\nindividuals from the vision requirement\nin 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final\ndecision to grant an exemption to each\nof these individuals was made on the\nmerits of each case and made only after\ncareful consideration of the comments\nreceived to its notices of applications.\nThe notices of applications stated in\ndetail the qualifications, experience,\nand medical condition of each applicant\nfor an exemption from the vision\nrequirements. That information is\navailable by consulting the above cited\nFederal Register publications.\nInterested parties or organizations\npossessing information that would\notherwise show that any, or all, of these\ndrivers are not currently achieving the\nstatutory level of safety should\nimmediately notify FMCSA. The\nAgency will evaluate any adverse\nevidence submitted and, if safety is\nbeing compromised or if continuation of\nthe exemption would not be consistent\nwith the goals and objectives of 49\nU.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will\ntake immediate steps to revoke the\nexemption of a driver.\nSubmitting Comments\nYou may submit your comments and\nmaterial online or by fax, mail, or hand\ndelivery, but please use only one of\nthese means. FMCSA recommends that\nyou include your name and a mailing\naddress, an email address, or a phone\nnumber in the body of your document\nso that FMCSA can contact you if there\nare questions regarding your\nsubmission.\nTo submit your comment online, go to\nhttp://www.regulations.gov and in the\nsearch box insert the docket numbers\nFMCSA–2001–9258; FMCSA–2001–\n9561; FMCSA–2003–15268; FMCSA–\n2005–21254; FMCSA–2009–0121;\nFMCSA–2011–0140; FMCSA–2011–\n0141 and click the search button. When\nthe new screen appears, click on the\nblue ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button on the\nright hand side of the page. On the new\npage, enter information required\nincluding the specific section of this\ndocument to which each comment\napplies, and provide a reason for each\nsuggestion or recommendation. If you\nsubmit your comments by mail or hand\ndelivery, submit them in an unbound\nformat, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,\nsuitable for copying and electronic\nfiling. If you submit comments by mail\nand would like to know that they\nreached the facility, please enclose a\nstamped, self-addressed postcard or\nenvelope.\nWe will consider all comments and\nmaterial received during the comment\nperiod and may change this proposed\nrule based on your comments. FMCSA\nmay issue a final rule at any time after\nthe close of the comment period.\nViewing Comments and Documents\nTo view comments, as well as any\ndocuments mentioned in this preamble,\nTo submit your comment online, go to\nhttp://www.regulations.gov and in the\nsearch box insert the docket number\nFMCSA–2001–9258; FMCSA–2001–\n9561; FMCSA–2003–15268; FMCSA–\n2005–21254; FMCSA–2009–0121;\nFMCSA–2011–0140; FMCSA–2011–\n0141 and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, click\n‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and you will find\nall documents and comments related to\nthe proposed rulemaking.\nIssued on: January 2, 2014.\nLarry W. Minor,\nAssociate Administrator for Policy.\n[FR Doc. 2014–01320 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–EX–P\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n[Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0226]\nImprovements in Preparing Oil Spill\nFacility Response Plans\nAGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), DOT.\nACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory\nBulletin.\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:45 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\28JAN1.SGM 28JAN1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES\nFederal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Notices\n4533\nSUBJECT: Conforming Facility Response\nPlans (FRPs) to Appendix A to Part\n194—‘‘Guidelines for the Preparation of\nResponse Plans’’ and Identifying\nDeficiencies.\nSUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this\nadvisory bulletin to remind all onshore\noil pipeline operators of the\ncircumstances of the Marshall,\nMichigan, pipeline accident and the\nneed to update FRPs every five years\nfrom the date of last submission or the\nlast approval according to its significant\nand substantial designation. Plans must\nalso be updated whenever new or\ndifferent operating conditions would\naffect the implementation of a response\nplan. (See 49 CFR 194.121.) When\nupdating their FRPs, operators should\nutilize Appendix A Part 194—\nGuidelines for the Preparation of\nResponse Plans and submit them\nelectronically to PHMSA.\nThis bulletin also notifies that FRPs\nfound to meet the requirements of\nPHMSA’s regulations at Part 194 will be\nposted on PHMSA’s Web site for public\nviewing. Prior to posting, PHMSA will\nredact certain information, such as\npersonally identifiable information and\ncertain security related information, in\naccordance with the Freedom of\nInformation Act and any other\napplicable Federal law. This document\nalso alerts operators and their plan\nsubmitters to common errors in plans\nthat require amendment prior to\nPHMSA’s issuance of approval. Finally,\nonshore oil pipeline operators are\nencouraged to consider replacing\nincorporations by reference in their\nFRPs with a summary of referenced\nmaterial or a copy of the full document.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nJustin Pryor by phone at 202–366–4595\nor by email at justin.pryor@dot.gov.\nInformation about PHMSA may be\nfound at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nI. Background\nOn Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m.\neastern daylight time, a segment of a 30-\ninch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B),\nowned and operated by Enbridge\nIncorporated (Enbridge), ruptured in a\nwetland in Marshall, Michigan. The\nrupture was not discovered or addressed\nfor over 17 hours. During the time lapse,\nEnbridge twice pumped additional oil\n(81 percent of the total release) into Line\n6B during two startups; the total release\nwas estimated to be 843,444 gallons of\ncrude oil. The oil saturated the\nsurrounding wetlands and flowed into\nthe Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo\nRiver. Local residents self-evacuated\nfrom their homes, and serious\nenvironmental damage has required\nlong-term remediation. About 320\npeople reported symptoms consistent\nwith crude oil exposure. No fatalities\nwere reported. Cleanup and remediation\ncontinues, and costs have exceeded $1\nbillion.\nThe National Transportation Safety\nBoard (NTSB) determined that the\nprobable cause of the pipeline rupture\nwas stress corrosion cracking that grew\nand coalesced from crack and corrosion\ndefects under disbonded polyethylene\ntape coating. The rupture and prolonged\nrelease were caused by pervasive\norganizational failures at Enbridge that\nincluded: (1) Deficient integrity\nmanagement procedures, which allowed\nwell-documented crack defects in\ncorroded areas to propagate until the\npipeline failed; (2) inadequate training\nof control center personnel, which\nresulted in Enbridge’s failure to\nrecognize the rupture for 17 hours and\nthrough two re-starts of the pipeline;\nand (3) insufficient public awareness\nand education, which allowed the\nrelease to continue for nearly 14 hours\nafter the first notification of an odor to\nlocal emergency response agencies.\nFurthermore, the NTSB found that a\nfailure to identify and ensure the\navailability of well-trained emergency\nresponders with sufficient response\nresources, a lack of regulatory guidance\nfor pipeline facility response planning,\nand limited oversight of pipeline\nemergency preparedness led to a\ndeficient FRP that contributed to the\nseverity of the environmental damage\nand long term consequences.\nII. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2014–01)\nTo: Owners and Operators of Onshore\nOil Pipeline Systems.\nSubject: Conforming Facility\nResponse Plans to Appendix A to Part\n194—‘‘Guidelines for the Preparation of\nResponse Plans’’ and Identifying\nDeficiencies.\nAdvisory: PHMSA’s regulations for\nFRPs, under § 194.115(a), state that\n‘‘each operator shall identify and\nensure, by contract or other approved\nmeans, the resources necessary to\nremove, to the maximum extent\npracticable, a worst case discharge and\nto mitigate or prevent a substantial\nthreat of a worst case discharge.’’\nSection 194.115(b) goes on to state that\n‘‘an operator shall identify in the\nresponse plan the response resources\nwhich are available to respond within\nthe time specified, after discovery of a\nworst case discharge, or to mitigate the\nsubstantial threat of such a discharge.’’\nThe NTSB noted that, because the\npipeline safety regulations do not\nexplicitly mandate the amount of\nresources or recovery capacity required\nfor a worst-case discharge, Enbridge\nmisinterpreted and miscalculated the\namount of oil response resources\nrequired by § 194.115, resulting in a lack\nof adequate oil spill recovery equipment\nand resources during the initial\nresponse. The NTSB also explained that\nalthough Part 194 Appendix A\nrecommends using the United States\nCoast Guard (USCG) regulations for\npreparation of FRPs, there was no\nindication that Enbridge utilized the\nUSCG regulations in the preparation of\nits FRP.\nSection 194.115(a) requires operators\nto identify in their FRP the resources\nthat are available to respond to a release.\nPHMSA points operators to Appendix C\nto 33 CFR part 154 Section 7,\n‘‘Calculating the Worst Case Discharge\nPlanning Volumes’’ as the best reference\nfor planning for and ensuring proper\nresponse capability. Appendix A of Part\n194—‘‘Guidelines for the Preparation of\nResponse Plans’’ recommends that\noperators use the USCG regulations for\npreparation of response plans. To help\ncomply with the identification and\nassurance of adequate response\nresources, as noted in the preamble to\nthe Final Rule ‘‘Pipeline Safety:\nResponse Plans for Onshore\nTransportation-Related Oil Pipelines,’’\nPHMSA ‘‘encourages operators to use\nUSCG-classified oil spill response\norganizations (OSRO).’’ An operator\ncontracting with USCG-classified\nOSROs for response to a worst case\ndischarge will not have to describe the\nresponse resources or the response\nequipment maintenance program of the\nUSCG-classified OSROs. The operator\nmust consider the time required for the\nUSCG-classified OSRO to respond to the\nspill from wherever the contractor is\nbased to the high volume area and all\nother areas.\nFor operators that contract with non-\nUSCG-classified OSRO’s, PHMSA uses\nthe USCG guidelines at 33 CFR part 154,\nAppendix C, along with the USCG\nplanning volume worksheet when it\nreviews FRPs to confirm sufficiency of\nresponse resources and compliance with\nPart 194.1\nSection 194.115(b) lists the maximum\ntimes allowed for response resources\nand personnel to arrive at the scene of\na rupture. The increments of time are\ndependent on whether the spill occurs\nin a high volume area. The NTSB noted\nthat Enbridge’s plan erroneously\nindicated that tiers refer to the size of a\nspill. Operators are reminded that ‘‘high\n1 The USCG Planning Volume Worksheet is\navailable at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/\nlibrary.\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:45 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\28JAN1.SGM 28JAN1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES\n4534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Notices\nvolume area’’ is defined in § 194.5. The\nresponse times that appear in the table\nat § 194.115(b) correspond with the tiers\nestablished by the USCG for a worst-\ncase discharge in the USCG guidance\nreferenced in Appendix A to Part 194.\nAs stated in a prior advisory bulletin\nADB–2010–05 published in the Federal\nRegister on June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36773)\noperators should review and update\ntheir oil spill response plans and\ncontracts to ensure the availability of\nnecessary response resources to a worst\ncase discharge from their pipeline\nfacilities even in the event that more\nthan one significant incident were to\noccur simultaneously. The NTSB found\nthat during the Marshall, MI, incident,\nEnbridge’s OSROs failed to adequately\nrespond because many of the initial\nresponse resources identified in the\nEnbridge’s FRP took over 10 hours to\narrive and be deployed at the spill site.\nUsing a USCG-classified OSRO to\naccount for response resources can help\nto reduce equipment information in an\nFRP and can help PHMSA confirm\nresponse capability in terms of\nresources. Nonetheless, it is the\noperator’s responsibility to ensure that\nany OSROs listed can respond to the\nscene of an incident with the\nappropriate amount of resources and\nwithin the times provided in the tiers at\n§ 194.115(b).\nAdditionally, to assist PHMSA in the\ntimely processing and review of FRPs,\nonshore pipeline operators are\nencouraged to submit electronic copies\nof their response plans. PHMSA prefers\nelectronic copies of plans in Portable\nDocument Format over hard copies of\nplans. Electronic copies can be sent via\ncommercial courier on disc or flash\ndrive to the Office of Pipeline Safety at\nPHMSA Headquarters’ address below:\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (Attn:\nResponse Plan Review), Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, U.S. Department of\nTransportation, PHP–5, East Building,\n2nd Floor, E22–321, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.\nAlternatively, electronic files less\nthan 5 MB can be sent to\nPHMSA.OPA90@dot.gov.\nPHMSA also wishes to point out\nerrors that commonly result in the\nrejection of plans in order to facilitate\nplan preparation and review. These\nerrors include: (1) Missing, incorrect or\nincomplete methodology and\ncalculations used to determine a Worst\nCase Discharge (WCD) that compares the\nvolumes of WCDs from the pipeline,\nbreakout tanks, and maximum historical\ndischarge to include, if necessary, an\naffirmation that any of these elements\nare not applicable to the calculation; (2)\nfailure to identify response resources\nthat are available to respond to an\nincident scene; (3) failure to identify\nspecific environmentally and\neconomically sensitive areas applicable\nto the pipeline area of operation; (4)\nmissing provisions to ensure responders\nare safe at a response site; and (5)\nomission of the name or title and 24-\nhour telephone number of an operator’s\n‘‘Qualified Individual’’ and at least one\nalternate. Deficiencies in any of these\nareas will require correction before\nPHMSA can approve a plan. FRPs found\nto meet the requirements of PHMSA’s\nregulations found at Part 194 will be\napproved and redacted in accordance\nwith FOIA and any other applicable\nFederal law and posted on PHMSA’s\nWeb site for public viewing. PHMSA\nposts these plans to help Federal, state\nand local officials strengthen and\ncoordinate planning and prevention\nactivities.\nFinally, PHMSA advises operators\nthat while it is permitted to incorporate\nmaterial into an FRP by reference, this\npractice may inhibit regulators’ and\nincident responders’ access to and\nunderstanding of an FRP during\nresponse to oil spill incidents and\nemergencies. For example, when\nresponding to a spill, responders and\nregulators need access to operations,\nmaintenance, and emergency manuals.\nIt is important that all of the potential\nusers of an FRP have immediate access\nto all relevant information and\nprocedures.\nTherefore, operators should review\ntheir FRPs and carefully consider each\nincorporated document and determine\nwhether full copies or summaries of\ndocuments should replace the\nreferences. PHMSA suggests operators\ninclude the relevant portion of any\nexternally referenced procedural\nmanual that is required in the FRP, by\nprovisions of 49 CFR part 194. This\npractice will also allow PHMSA to more\neffectively determine that the operator’s\nFRP procedures are consistent with Part\n194 requirements.\nAuthority: 49 U.S.C. chapter 601: 49 CFR\n1.53.\nIssued in Washington, DC, on January 22,\n2014.\nJeffrey D. Wiese,\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.\n[FR Doc. 2014–01515 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–60–P\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nSubmission for OMB Review;\nComment Request\nJanuary 22, 2014.\nThe Department of the Treasury will\nsubmit the following information\ncollection requests to the Office of\nManagement and Budget (OMB) for\nreview and clearance in accordance\nwith the Paperwork Reduction Act of\n1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the\ndate of publication of this notice.\nDATES: Comments should be received on\nor before February 27, 2014 to be\nassured of consideration.\nADDRESSES: Send comments regarding\nthe burden estimate, or any other aspect\nof the information collection, including\nsuggestions for reducing the burden, to\n(1) Office of Information and Regulatory\nAffairs, Office of Management and\nBudget, Attention: Desk Officer for\nTreasury, New Executive Office\nBuilding, Room 10235, Washington, DC\n20503, or email at OIRA\nSubmission@\n_\nOMB.EOP.gov and (2) Treasury PRA\nClearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania\nAve. NW., Suite 8141, Washington, DC\n20220, or email at PRA@treasury.gov.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nCopies of the submission(s) may be\nobtained by calling (202) 622–1295,\nemailing PRA@treasury.gov, or the\nentire information collection request\nmay be found at www.reginfo.gov.\nInternal Revenue Service (IRS)\nOMB Number: 1545–0137.\nType of Review: Extension without\nchange of a currently approved\ncollection.\nTitle: Contract Coverage Under Title II\nof the Social Security Act.\nForm: Form 2032.\nAbstract: U.S. citizens and resident\naliens employed abroad by foreign\naffiliates of American employers are\nexempt from social security taxes.\nUnder Internal Revenue Code section\n3121(1), American employers may file\nan agreement on Form 2032 to waive\nthis exemption and obtain social\nsecurity coverage for U.S. citizens and\nresident aliens employed abroad by\ntheir foreign affiliates. The American\nemployers can later file Form 2032 to\ncover additional foreign affiliates as an\namendment to their original agreement.\nAffected Public: Individuals or\nhouseholds; Businesses or other for-\nprofits.\nEstimated Annual Burden Hours: 973.\nOMB Number: 1545–0409.\nType of Review: Revision of a\ncurrently approved collection.\nTitle: Application for Reward for\nOriginal Information.\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:45 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\28JAN1.SGM 28JAN1","truncated":false,"body_characters":22121}