# Improvements in Preparing Oil Spill Facility Response Plans

- **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:** Not available
- **effective on:** Not available
- **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

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 for the Preparation of Response Plans and submit them electronically to PHMSA.

          Effective Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014

<<<PAGE 1>>>

4532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Notices
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
examination every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who
attests that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the requirements in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a
medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically
qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that
each individual provides a copy of the
ophthalmologist’s or optometrist’s
report to the medical examiner at the
time of the annual medical examination;
and (3) that each individual provide a
copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the
driver’s qualification file and retains a
copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to
a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official. Each exemption
will be valid for two years unless
rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms
and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level
of safety than was maintained before it
was granted; or (3) continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with
the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315.
Basis for Renewing Exemptions
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an
exemption may be granted for no longer
than two years from its approval date
and may be renewed upon application
for additional two year periods. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, each of the 41 applicants has
satisfied the entry conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (66 FR 17743; 66 FR
30502; 66 FR 33990; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR
35772; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR
48989; 70 FR 30999; 70 FR 33937; 70 FR
41811; 70 FR 42615; 70 FR 46567; 72 FR
32705; 72 FR 40359; 72 FR 40360; 74 FR
26461; 74 FR 34074; 74 FR 34630; 74 FR
34632; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR 40445; 76 FR
44653; 76 FR 49531; 76 FR 50318; 76 FR
53710). Each of these 41 applicants has
requested renewal of the exemption and
has submitted evidence showing that
the vision in the better eye continues to
meet the requirement specified at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while
driving with the respective vision
deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to
meet the vision exemption
requirements.
These factors provide an adequate
basis for predicting each driver’s ability
to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA
concludes that extending the exemption
for each renewal applicant for a period
of two years is likely to achieve a level
of safety equal to that existing without
the exemption.
Request for Comments
FMCSA will review comments
received at any time concerning a
particular driver’s safety record and
determine if the continuation of the
exemption is consistent with the
requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315. However, FMCSA requests that
interested parties with specific data
concerning the safety records of these
drivers submit comments by February
27, 2014.
FMCSA believes that the
requirements for a renewal of an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then
requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by
interested parties. As indicated above,
the Agency previously published
notices of final disposition announcing
its decision to exempt these 41
individuals from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final
decision to grant an exemption to each
of these individuals was made on the
merits of each case and made only after
careful consideration of the comments
received to its notices of applications.
The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience,
and medical condition of each applicant
for an exemption from the vision
requirements. That information is
available by consulting the above cited
Federal Register publications.
Interested parties or organizations
possessing information that would
otherwise show that any, or all, of these
drivers are not currently achieving the
statutory level of safety should
immediately notify FMCSA. The
Agency will evaluate any adverse
evidence submitted and, if safety is
being compromised or if continuation of
the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will
take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.
Submitting Comments
You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that
you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that FMCSA can contact you if there
are questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket numbers
FMCSA–2001–9258; FMCSA–2001–
9561; FMCSA–2003–15268; FMCSA–
2005–21254; FMCSA–2009–0121;
FMCSA–2011–0140; FMCSA–2011–
0141 and click the search button. When
the new screen appears, click on the
blue ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button on the
right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required
including the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. 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 facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment
period and may change this proposed
rule based on your comments. FMCSA
may issue a final rule at any time after
the close of the comment period.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any
documents mentioned in this preamble,
To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket number
FMCSA–2001–9258; FMCSA–2001–
9561; FMCSA–2003–15268; FMCSA–
2005–21254; FMCSA–2009–0121;
FMCSA–2011–0140; FMCSA–2011–
0141 and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, click
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and you will find
all documents and comments related to
the proposed rulemaking.
Issued on: January 2, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014–01320 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0226]
Improvements in Preparing Oil Spill
Facility Response Plans
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory
Bulletin.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:45 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM 28JAN1

<<<PAGE 2>>>

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Notices
4533
SUBJECT: Conforming Facility Response
Plans (FRPs) to Appendix A to Part
194—‘‘Guidelines for the Preparation of
Response Plans’’ and Identifying
Deficiencies.
SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this
advisory bulletin to remind all onshore
oil pipeline operators of the
circumstances of the Marshall,
Michigan, pipeline accident and 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. Plans must
also be updated whenever new or
different operating conditions would
affect the implementation of a response
plan. (See 49 CFR 194.121.) When
updating their FRPs, operators should
utilize Appendix A Part 194—
Guidelines for the Preparation of
Response Plans and submit them
electronically to PHMSA.
This bulletin also notifies that FRPs
found to meet the requirements of
PHMSA’s regulations at Part 194 will be
posted on PHMSA’s Web site for public
viewing. Prior to posting, PHMSA will
redact certain information, such as
personally identifiable information and
certain security related information, in
accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act and any other
applicable Federal law. This document
also alerts operators and their plan
submitters to common errors in plans
that require amendment prior to
PHMSA’s issuance of approval. Finally,
onshore oil pipeline operators are
encouraged to consider replacing
incorporations by reference in their
FRPs with a summary of referenced
material or a copy of the full document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Justin Pryor by phone at 202–366–4595
or by email at justin.pryor@dot.gov.
Information about PHMSA may be
found at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m.
eastern daylight time, a segment of a 30-
inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B),
owned and operated by Enbridge
Incorporated (Enbridge), ruptured in a
wetland in Marshall, Michigan. The
rupture was not discovered or addressed
for over 17 hours. During the time lapse,
Enbridge twice pumped additional oil
(81 percent of the total release) into Line
6B during two startups; the total release
was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of
crude oil. The oil saturated the
surrounding wetlands and flowed into
the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo
River. Local residents self-evacuated
from their homes, and serious
environmental damage has required
long-term remediation. About 320
people reported symptoms consistent
with crude oil exposure. No fatalities
were reported. Cleanup and remediation
continues, and costs have exceeded $1
billion.
The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) determined that the
probable cause of the pipeline rupture
was stress corrosion cracking that grew
and coalesced from crack and corrosion
defects under disbonded polyethylene
tape coating. The rupture and prolonged
release were caused by pervasive
organizational failures at Enbridge that
included: (1) Deficient integrity
management procedures, which allowed
well-documented crack defects in
corroded areas to propagate until the
pipeline failed; (2) inadequate training
of control center personnel, which
resulted in Enbridge’s failure to
recognize the rupture for 17 hours and
through two re-starts of the pipeline;
and (3) insufficient public awareness
and education, which allowed the
release to continue for nearly 14 hours
after the first notification of an odor to
local emergency response agencies.
Furthermore, the NTSB found that a
failure to identify and ensure the
availability of well-trained emergency
responders with sufficient response
resources, a lack of regulatory guidance
for pipeline facility response planning,
and limited oversight of pipeline
emergency preparedness led to a
deficient FRP that contributed to the
severity of the environmental damage
and long term consequences.
II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2014–01)
To: Owners and Operators of Onshore
Oil Pipeline Systems.
Subject: Conforming Facility
Response Plans to Appendix A to Part
194—‘‘Guidelines for the Preparation of
Response Plans’’ and Identifying
Deficiencies.
Advisory: PHMSA’s regulations for
FRPs, under § 194.115(a), state that
‘‘each operator shall identify and
ensure, by contract or other approved
means, the resources necessary to
remove, to the maximum extent
practicable, a worst case discharge and
to mitigate or prevent a substantial
threat of a worst case discharge.’’
Section 194.115(b) goes on to state that
‘‘an operator shall identify in the
response plan the response resources
which are available to respond within
the time specified, after discovery of a
worst case discharge, or to mitigate the
substantial threat of such a discharge.’’
The NTSB noted that, because the
pipeline safety regulations do not
explicitly mandate the amount of
resources or recovery capacity required
for a worst-case discharge, Enbridge
misinterpreted and miscalculated the
amount of oil response resources
required by § 194.115, resulting in a lack
of adequate oil spill recovery equipment
and resources during the initial
response. The NTSB also explained that
although Part 194 Appendix A
recommends using the United States
Coast Guard (USCG) regulations for
preparation of FRPs, there was no
indication that Enbridge utilized the
USCG regulations in the preparation of
its FRP.
Section 194.115(a) requires operators
to identify in their FRP the resources
that are available to respond to a release.
PHMSA points operators to Appendix C
to 33 CFR part 154 Section 7,
‘‘Calculating the Worst Case Discharge
Planning Volumes’’ as the best reference
for planning for and ensuring proper
response capability. Appendix A of Part
194—‘‘Guidelines for the Preparation of
Response Plans’’ recommends that
operators use the USCG regulations for
preparation of response plans. To help
comply with the identification and
assurance of adequate response
resources, as noted in the preamble to
the Final Rule ‘‘Pipeline Safety:
Response Plans for Onshore
Transportation-Related Oil Pipelines,’’
PHMSA ‘‘encourages operators to use
USCG-classified oil spill response
organizations (OSRO).’’ An operator
contracting with USCG-classified
OSROs for response to a worst case
discharge will not have to describe the
response resources or the response
equipment maintenance program of the
USCG-classified OSROs. The operator
must consider the time required for the
USCG-classified OSRO to respond to the
spill from wherever the contractor is
based to the high volume area and all
other areas.
For operators that contract with non-
USCG-classified OSRO’s, PHMSA uses
the USCG guidelines at 33 CFR part 154,
Appendix C, along with the USCG
planning volume worksheet when it
reviews FRPs to confirm sufficiency of
response resources and compliance with
Part 194.1
Section 194.115(b) lists the maximum
times allowed for response resources
and personnel to arrive at the scene of
a rupture. The increments of time are
dependent on whether the spill occurs
in a high volume area. The NTSB noted
that Enbridge’s plan erroneously
indicated that tiers refer to the size of a
spill. Operators are reminded that ‘‘high
1 The USCG Planning Volume Worksheet is
available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/
library.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:45 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM 28JAN1

<<<PAGE 3>>>

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Notices
volume area’’ is defined in § 194.5. The
response times that appear in the table
at § 194.115(b) correspond with the tiers
established by the USCG for a worst-
case discharge in the USCG guidance
referenced in Appendix A to Part 194.
As stated in a prior advisory bulletin
ADB–2010–05 published in the Federal
Register on June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36773)
operators should review and update
their oil spill response plans and
contracts to ensure the availability of
necessary response resources to a worst
case discharge from their pipeline
facilities even in the event that more
than one significant incident were to
occur simultaneously. The NTSB found
that during the Marshall, MI, incident,
Enbridge’s OSROs failed to adequately
respond because many of the initial
response resources identified in the
Enbridge’s FRP took over 10 hours to
arrive and be deployed at the spill site.
Using a USCG-classified OSRO to
account for response resources can help
to reduce equipment information in an
FRP and can help PHMSA confirm
response capability in terms of
resources. Nonetheless, it is the
operator’s responsibility to ensure that
any OSROs listed can respond to the
scene of an incident with the
appropriate amount of resources and
within the times provided in the tiers at
§ 194.115(b).
Additionally, to assist PHMSA in the
timely processing and review of FRPs,
onshore pipeline operators are
encouraged to submit electronic copies
of their response plans. PHMSA prefers
electronic copies of plans in Portable
Document Format over hard copies of
plans. Electronic copies can be sent via
commercial courier on disc or flash
drive to the Office of Pipeline Safety at
PHMSA Headquarters’ address below:
Office of Pipeline Safety (Attn:
Response Plan Review), Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, PHP–5, East Building,
2nd Floor, E22–321, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Alternatively, electronic files less
than 5 MB can be sent to
PHMSA.OPA90@dot.gov.
PHMSA also wishes to point out
errors that commonly result in the
rejection of plans in order to facilitate
plan preparation and review. These
errors include: (1) Missing, incorrect or
incomplete methodology and
calculations used to determine a Worst
Case Discharge (WCD) that compares the
volumes of WCDs from the pipeline,
breakout tanks, and maximum historical
discharge to include, if necessary, an
affirmation that any of these elements
are not applicable to the calculation; (2)
failure to identify response resources
that are available to respond to an
incident scene; (3) failure to identify
specific environmentally and
economically sensitive areas applicable
to the pipeline area of operation; (4)
missing provisions to ensure responders
are safe at a response site; and (5)
omission of the name or title and 24-
hour telephone number of an operator’s
‘‘Qualified Individual’’ and at least one
alternate. Deficiencies in any of these
areas will require correction before
PHMSA can approve a plan. FRPs found
to meet the requirements of PHMSA’s
regulations found at Part 194 will be
approved and redacted in accordance
with FOIA and any other applicable
Federal law and posted on PHMSA’s
Web site for public viewing. PHMSA
posts these plans to help Federal, state
and local officials strengthen and
coordinate planning and prevention
activities.
Finally, PHMSA advises operators
that while it is permitted to incorporate
material into an FRP by reference, this
practice may inhibit regulators’ and
incident responders’ access to and
understanding of an FRP during
response to oil spill incidents and
emergencies. For example, when
responding to a spill, responders and
regulators need access to operations,
maintenance, and emergency manuals.
It is important that all of the potential
users of an FRP have immediate access
to all relevant information and
procedures.
Therefore, operators should review
their FRPs and carefully consider each
incorporated document and determine
whether full copies or summaries of
documents should replace the
references. PHMSA suggests operators
include the relevant portion of any
externally referenced procedural
manual that is required in the FRP, by
provisions of 49 CFR part 194. This
practice will also allow PHMSA to more
effectively determine that the operator’s
FRP procedures are consistent with Part
194 requirements.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapter 601: 49 CFR
1.53.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22,
2014.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014–01515 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
January 22, 2014.
The Department of the Treasury will
submit the following information
collection requests to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the
date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Comments should be received on
or before February 27, 2014 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the burden estimate, or any other aspect
of the information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
(1) Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
Treasury, New Executive Office
Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC
20503, or email at OIRA
Submission@
_
OMB.EOP.gov and (2) Treasury PRA
Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Suite 8141, Washington, DC
20220, or email at PRA@treasury.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling (202) 622–1295,
emailing PRA@treasury.gov, or the
entire information collection request
may be found at www.reginfo.gov.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
OMB Number: 1545–0137.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: Contract Coverage Under Title II
of the Social Security Act.
Form: Form 2032.
Abstract: U.S. citizens and resident
aliens employed abroad by foreign
affiliates of American employers are
exempt from social security taxes.
Under Internal Revenue Code section
3121(1), American employers may file
an agreement on Form 2032 to waive
this exemption and obtain social
security coverage for U.S. citizens and
resident aliens employed abroad by
their foreign affiliates. The American
employers can later file Form 2032 to
cover additional foreign affiliates as an
amendment to their original agreement.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; Businesses or other for-
profits.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 973.
OMB Number: 1545–0409.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Title: Application for Reward for
Original Information.
VerDate 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