# U.S. DOT/RSPA - Pipeline Safety: Change in Response Plan Review Cycle - Confirmation of Effective Date and Correction of Direct Final Rule

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

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
submissions to five years for operators who are required to submit
facility response plans to RSPA. Pipeline operators were previously
required to submit facility response plans every three years. This
document also corrects a citation contained in the Background section
of the direct final rule, and addresses the comments that were
submitted to RSPA by clarifying certain language.
DATES: The effective date of the direct final rule published on
December 24, 1997, (62 FR 67292) is confirmed to be February 23, 1998.
The effective date of the correction to the Direct Final Rule is
February 23, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Taylor, (202) 366-8860, or by e-
mail at jim.taylor@rspa.dot.gov, regarding the subject matter of this
Notice; or the RSPA Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, for copies of the
direct final rule or other information in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Need for Correction
In the direct final rule published in the Federal Register on
December 24, 1997, (62 FR 67292), on page 67292, in the third column,
the first sentence of third paragraph of the Background section
incorrectly refers to 49 CFR 194.121(b). The sentence should refer to
49 CFR 194.121 (a) .
Need for Clarification
The procedures governing issuance of direct final rules are in 49
http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi~waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=99101296836+7+0+0 ... 2/5/2004

<<<PAGE 2>>>

WAIS Document Retrieval Page 2 of 3
CFR 190.339. These procedures provide for public notice and opportunity
for comment subsequent to publication of a direct final rule. They also
provide that unless an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an
adverse comment is received within a specified comment period, the
Administrator will issue a confirmation document advising the public
that the direct final rule will either become effective on the date
stated in the direct final rule or at least 30 days after the
publication date of the confirmation. If an adverse comment or notice
of intent to file an adverse comment had been received, RSPA would have
issued a timely notice in the Federal Register to confirm that fact and
withdrawn the direct final rule in whole or in part. According to the
procedures, an adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would
be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying
premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a
change. A comment recommending a rule change in addition to the rule is
not an adverse comment, unless the commenter states why the rule would
be ineffective without the additional change.
As discussed below, RSPA received two comments on the direct final
rule. RSPA does not consider any of the comments to be adverse comments
under the direct final rule procedures.
Consequently, RSPA is publishing this document to confirm the
effective date announced in the direct final rule.
The California Department of Fish and Game's Office of Spill
Prevention and Response and the American Petroleum Institute provided
comments. Although both were supportive of the direct final rule in
concept, both expressed concerns about application of the new rules.
California suggested that RSPA should require operators to review
their plans annually for any corrections, deletions, or additions,
submitting minor changes to RSPA annually, and submitting substantive
changes as soon as they occur. RSPA shares California's concerns and
believes that it is prudent for operators to review their own plans
periodically to ensure that the documents are current. Although RSPA is
not adopting California's suggested requirement, RSPA will consider it
for a future rulemaking later this year.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) commented that the five-year
cycle should commence on the date RSPA approves a response plan,
whenever that takes place. RSPA agrees, and applies this rule to
\ \
significant and substantial harm' facilities. However, RSPA believes
the plan review cycle for facilities designated as "substantial harm' '
commences on the date of the most recent plan submission based on the
fact that RSPA does not issue approvals for "substantial harm"
facilities. RSPA will clarify when it issues the final rule for 49 CFR
part 194 later this year. API also identified a typographical error in
a regulatory citation. RSPA has corrected the error. API commented that
they believed that there is no current requirement for substantial harm
facilities to submit plans. RSPA disagrees, and has left the reference
intact.
In response to comments received, RSPA provides the following
specific clarifications:
1. .As proposed, Sec. 194.121(a) indicates that response plans
should be submitted five years from the date of submission of these
plans to RSPA. To clarify, plans for facilities designated as
"substantial harm" facilities should be submitted based on the most
recent date of submission of the plans to RSPA, rather than on the date
of approval, because "substantial harm" facilities have not been
issued an approval date by RSPA. However, plans for facilities
designated as "significant and substantial harm' ' should be submitted
based on the most recent approval date issued by RSPA. RSPA will
clarify when it issues the final rule for 49 CFR part 194, subpart B is
issued later this year.
http://frwebgate5 .access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=99 10 1 296836+7+0+0.. . 2/5/2004

<<<PAGE 3>>>

WAIS Document Retrieval Page 3 of 3
2. On page 67292, in the third column, the last sentence of fourth
paragraph under the Background section states: "Although the current
three-year cycle for all plans is ending, when this rule becomes
effective there will be no requirement to resubmit existing plans until
two years from now." This sentence could be interpreted to require an
operator whose plan was approved in 1997 to resubmit the plan again in
two years, and every five years thereafter. This is not the intent of
RSPA. RSPA's intent is that if an operator's plan was approved in 1997,
the next submission would not be required until 2002, five years from
the plan's approval date.
3. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1251-
1387) specifies that response plans must be submitted for onshore
facilities that "because of (their) location, could reasonably be
expected to cause substantial harm to the environment," as well as for
facilities that "could reasonably be expected to cause significant and
substantial harm to the environment * * * I t (33 U.S.C.
1321(j) (5) ( B ) (iii) and 1321(j) (5) (D)).
[[page 1034811
RSPA believes that all operators of onshore oil pipelines are required
to submit facility response plans under 49 CFR part 1 9 4 , but has
decided to review and approve only those plans designated by the
operators as posing a threat of "significant and substantial harm to
the environment.' '
Issued in Washington, DC on February 25, 1998.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-5380 Filed 3-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi~waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=99101296836+7+0+0 ... 2/5/2004
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 7830