{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e84ed1","title":"U.S. DOT/RSPA - Pipeline Safety: Change in Response Plan Review Cycle - Confirmation of Effective Date and Correction of Direct Final Rule","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"WAIS Document Retrieval &%+54QJ Page 1 of 3 [Federal Register: March 3, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 41)l [Rules and Regulations] [Page 10347-103481 From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03mr98-20] 211 :'i it: i*u DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 194 [Docket No. PS-130; Amdt. 194-11 RIN 2137-AD12 Pipeline Safety: Change in Response Plan Review Cycle AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Confirmation of effective date and correction of direct final rule. SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule that changes the reporting cycle for facility response plan...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84ed1.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84ed1.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84ed1","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2003-16560-0024/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nWAIS Document Retrieval\n&%+54QJ Page 1 of 3\n[Federal Register: March 3, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 41)l\n[Rules and Regulations]\n[Page 10347-103481\nFrom the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]\n[DOCID:fr03mr98-20] 211 :'i it: i*u\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\n49 CFR Part 194\n[Docket No. PS-130; Amdt. 194-11\nRIN 2137-AD12\nPipeline Safety: Change in Response Plan Review Cycle\nAGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.\nACTION: Confirmation of effective date and correction of direct final\nrule.\nSUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final\nrule that changes the reporting cycle for facility response plan\nsubmissions to five years for operators who are required to submit\nfacility response plans to RSPA. Pipeline operators were previously\nrequired to submit facility response plans every three years. This\ndocument also corrects a citation contained in the Background section\nof the direct final rule, and addresses the comments that were\nsubmitted to RSPA by clarifying certain language.\nDATES: The effective date of the direct final rule published on\nDecember 24, 1997, (62 FR 67292) is confirmed to be February 23, 1998.\nThe effective date of the correction to the Direct Final Rule is\nFebruary 23, 1998.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Taylor, (202) 366-8860, or by e-\nmail at jim.taylor@rspa.dot.gov, regarding the subject matter of this\nNotice; or the RSPA Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, for copies of the\ndirect final rule or other information in the docket.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nNeed for Correction\nIn the direct final rule published in the Federal Register on\nDecember 24, 1997, (62 FR 67292), on page 67292, in the third column,\nthe first sentence of third paragraph of the Background section\nincorrectly refers to 49 CFR 194.121(b). The sentence should refer to\n49 CFR 194.121 (a) .\nNeed for Clarification\nThe procedures governing issuance of direct final rules are in 49\nhttp://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi~waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=99101296836+7+0+0 ... 2/5/2004\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nWAIS Document Retrieval Page 2 of 3\nCFR 190.339. These procedures provide for public notice and opportunity\nfor comment subsequent to publication of a direct final rule. They also\nprovide that unless an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an\nadverse comment is received within a specified comment period, the\nAdministrator will issue a confirmation document advising the public\nthat the direct final rule will either become effective on the date\nstated in the direct final rule or at least 30 days after the\npublication date of the confirmation. If an adverse comment or notice\nof intent to file an adverse comment had been received, RSPA would have\nissued a timely notice in the Federal Register to confirm that fact and\nwithdrawn the direct final rule in whole or in part. According to the\nprocedures, an adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would\nbe inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying\npremise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a\nchange. A comment recommending a rule change in addition to the rule is\nnot an adverse comment, unless the commenter states why the rule would\nbe ineffective without the additional change.\nAs discussed below, RSPA received two comments on the direct final\nrule. RSPA does not consider any of the comments to be adverse comments\nunder the direct final rule procedures.\nConsequently, RSPA is publishing this document to confirm the\neffective date announced in the direct final rule.\nThe California Department of Fish and Game's Office of Spill\nPrevention and Response and the American Petroleum Institute provided\ncomments. Although both were supportive of the direct final rule in\nconcept, both expressed concerns about application of the new rules.\nCalifornia suggested that RSPA should require operators to review\ntheir plans annually for any corrections, deletions, or additions,\nsubmitting minor changes to RSPA annually, and submitting substantive\nchanges as soon as they occur. RSPA shares California's concerns and\nbelieves that it is prudent for operators to review their own plans\nperiodically to ensure that the documents are current. Although RSPA is\nnot adopting California's suggested requirement, RSPA will consider it\nfor a future rulemaking later this year.\nThe American Petroleum Institute (API) commented that the five-year\ncycle should commence on the date RSPA approves a response plan,\nwhenever that takes place. RSPA agrees, and applies this rule to\n\\ \\\nsignificant and substantial harm' facilities. However, RSPA believes\nthe plan review cycle for facilities designated as \"substantial harm' '\ncommences on the date of the most recent plan submission based on the\nfact that RSPA does not issue approvals for \"substantial harm\"\nfacilities. RSPA will clarify when it issues the final rule for 49 CFR\npart 194 later this year. API also identified a typographical error in\na regulatory citation. RSPA has corrected the error. API commented that\nthey believed that there is no current requirement for substantial harm\nfacilities to submit plans. RSPA disagrees, and has left the reference\nintact.\nIn response to comments received, RSPA provides the following\nspecific clarifications:\n1. .As proposed, Sec. 194.121(a) indicates that response plans\nshould be submitted five years from the date of submission of these\nplans to RSPA. To clarify, plans for facilities designated as\n\"substantial harm\" facilities should be submitted based on the most\nrecent date of submission of the plans to RSPA, rather than on the date\nof approval, because \"substantial harm\" facilities have not been\nissued an approval date by RSPA. However, plans for facilities\ndesignated as \"significant and substantial harm' ' should be submitted\nbased on the most recent approval date issued by RSPA. RSPA will\nclarify when it issues the final rule for 49 CFR part 194, subpart B is\nissued later this year.\nhttp://frwebgate5 .access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=99 10 1 296836+7+0+0.. . 2/5/2004\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nWAIS Document Retrieval Page 3 of 3\n2. On page 67292, in the third column, the last sentence of fourth\nparagraph under the Background section states: \"Although the current\nthree-year cycle for all plans is ending, when this rule becomes\neffective there will be no requirement to resubmit existing plans until\ntwo years from now.\" This sentence could be interpreted to require an\noperator whose plan was approved in 1997 to resubmit the plan again in\ntwo years, and every five years thereafter. This is not the intent of\nRSPA. RSPA's intent is that if an operator's plan was approved in 1997,\nthe next submission would not be required until 2002, five years from\nthe plan's approval date.\n3. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1251-\n1387) specifies that response plans must be submitted for onshore\nfacilities that \"because of (their) location, could reasonably be\nexpected to cause substantial harm to the environment,\" as well as for\nfacilities that \"could reasonably be expected to cause significant and\nsubstantial harm to the environment * * * I t (33 U.S.C.\n1321(j) (5) ( B ) (iii) and 1321(j) (5) (D)).\n[[page 1034811\nRSPA believes that all operators of onshore oil pipelines are required\nto submit facility response plans under 49 CFR part 1 9 4 , but has\ndecided to review and approve only those plans designated by the\noperators as posing a threat of \"significant and substantial harm to\nthe environment.' '\nIssued in Washington, DC on February 25, 1998.\nKelley S. Coyner,\nActing Administrator.\n[FR Doc. 98-5380 Filed 3-2-98; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910-60-P\nhttp://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi~waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=99101296836+7+0+0 ... 2/5/2004","truncated":false,"body_characters":7830}