30 Day Federal Register Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2013 / Notices
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
Authority: 49 CFR § 1.93.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Dated: September 4, 2013.
Christine Gurland,
Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013–22039 Filed 9–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No PHMSA–2013–0061]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice
announces that the Information
Collection Request abstracted below is
being forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comments. A Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the
following information collection was
published on April 23, 2013, (78 FR
23972).
PHMSA received one comment in
response to that notice. PHMSA is
publishing this notice to respond to the
comment, provide the public with an
additional 30 days to comment on the
proposed revisions to the forms and the
instructions, and announce that the
revised information collection will be
submitted to OMB for approval.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 11, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Blaine Keener by telephone at 202–366–
0970, by fax at 202–366–4566, or by
email at [email protected].
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2013–0061 by any of the
following methods:
• Fax: 1–202–395–5806.
• Mail: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Records
Management Center, Room 10102
NEOB, 725 17th Street NW.,

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 Sep 10, 2013

Jkt 229001

Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk
Officer for the U.S. Department of
Transportation/PHMSA.
• Email: OIRA, OMB, at the following
email address: OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov.
Requests for a copy of the Information
Collection should be directed to Angela
Dow by telephone at 202–366–1246, by
fax at 202–366–4566, by email at
[email protected], or by mail at U.S.
Department of Transportation, PHMSA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP–30,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of
Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to
provide interested members of the
public and affected agencies an
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests.
This notice identifies a revised
information collection request that
PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for
approval. The information collected
from hazardous liquid operators is an
important tool for identifying safety
trends in the hazardous liquid pipeline
industry.
In a Federal Register Notice on April
23, 2013, with a 60-day comment
period, PHMSA published its proposed
changes to the hazardous liquid
operators’ accident report and its
proposal to include the incorporation by
reference of American Petroleum
Institute (API) API 1130 (the industry
standard on leak detection) which
provides information collection and
maintenance guidance on many factors
such as measurement capabilities,
communications reliability, pipeline
operating condition, and product type.
During this response period, PHMSA
received one joint comment from API
and the Association of Oil Pipelines
(AOPL).
This 30-day notice responds to the
comments, which may be found at
http://www.regulations.gov, at docket
number PHMSA–2013–0061.
The following is a summary of the
joint comments to PHMSA regarding the
proposed changes to Form PHMSA F
7000–1 ACCIDENT REPORT—
HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE
SYSTEMS.
A. Instructions for Volume Spilled (Part
A9) and Volume Recovered (Part A11)
Comment: API/AOPL opposes
PHMSA’s proposal to include all
product exiting the pipeline system in
both the Volume Spilled and Volume
Recovered categories. API/AOPL
requests that volume exiting a system
during a controlled event not be
reported.

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

55775

PHMSA Response: PHMSA does not
consider any product exiting the system
at the failure location to be done in a
controlled manner. We are proposing to
revise the instructions to exempt
product removed from the system at
locations remote from the failure site
from both the Volume Spilled and
Volume Recovered categories. However,
we continue to propose that all product
exiting the system at the failure site,
regardless of the degree of control
attainable by the operator, be reported
in both Volume Spilled and Volume
Recovered. Limiting the Volume Spilled
to product exiting the system at the
failure site provides the most accurate
characterization of the consequences of
the accident. The difference between
Volume Spilled and Volume Recovered
provides the most accurate
characterization of the environmental
consequences of the accident. This
change does not penalize operators for
withdrawing product in a controlled
manner at locations remote from the
failure site and provides incentive to
move product away from the failure site
whenever possible.
Comment: API/AOPL recommends
‘‘facility’’ be replaced with ‘‘system’’ in
the instructions for Volume Spilled and
Volume Recovered.
PHMSA Response: PHMSA has
implemented this recommendation.
B. Instructions for Time Sequence (Part
A18)
Comment: API/AOPL opposes the
proposed change to the instructions
regarding the use of the phrase ‘‘when
the operator became aware of the
accident’’ to describe the earliest date
and time an operator identifies a
pipeline failure. API/AOPL states that
‘‘awareness of the accident’’ is open to
wide interpretation and suggests that
‘‘awareness’’ be replaced with
‘‘discovery’’, which is used in other
PHMSA regulations. API/AOPL notes
that PHMSA’s regulations for safetyrelated conditions characterize
‘‘discovery’’ as ‘‘when an operator’s
representative has adequate information
from which to conclude the probable
existence.’’
PHMSA Response: We do not agree
that the proposal to use ‘‘adequate’’ and
‘‘probable’’ in the definition of
‘‘discovery’’ provides additional clarity.
Part A18 of the form simply requires the
operator to report the earliest date/time
the operator identified the failure and
the date/time the operator arrived on
site. If PHMSA were to implement API/
AOPL’s recommendation, these date/
times would be identical and PHMSA
would gain no knowledge of operator
response time.

E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM

11SEN1

55776

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2013 / Notices

C. Instructions for National Response
Center Report Number
Comment: API/AOPL requests that
PHMSA delay the proposal to collect
multiple National Response Center
(NRC) report numbers until the NRC
implements requirements from the
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty,
and Job Creation Act of 2011 (‘‘Act’’).
PHMSA Response: PHMSA does not
agree that it is necessary to wait for
actions the NRC may take in response to
the ‘‘Act.’’
Comment: API/AOPL suggests a new
option is needed when a NRC Report
was not submitted and proposes that
‘‘NRC notification not required at time
of release’’ be added as an option.
PHMSA Response: PHMSA has
already proposed ‘‘NRC Notification Not
Required’’ as an option.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

D. Revise instructions for Accident
Preparer and Authorizer
Comment: API/AOPL recommends
changes to both the instructions and
form to make clear that the information
will be available to the public.
PHMSA Response: All data submitted
by operators to PHMSA could
potentially be made publicly available.
We have not adopted this
recommendation.
The following information is provided
for each information collection: (1)
Abstract for the affected accident report
form; (2) title of the information
collection; (3) OMB control number; (4)
affected accident report form; (5)
description of affected public; (6)
estimate of total accident reporting and
recordkeeping burden; and (7)
frequency of collection. PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for
each information collection activity and,
when approved by OMB, publish notice
of the approval in the Federal Register.
PHMSA requests comments on the
following information collection:
Title: Transportation of Hazardous
Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and
Accident Reporting.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0047.
Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2014.
Type of Request: Revision.
Abstract: This information collection
covers recordkeeping and accident
reporting by hazardous liquid pipeline
operators who are subject to 49 CFR Part
195 as well as the incorporation by
reference of the industry standard on
leak detection. PHMSA is proposing to
revise the Hazardous Liquid Accident
Report to collect more data on small
spills and to revise the instructions for
completing the form. Section 195.50
specifies the definition of an ‘‘accident’’
and the reporting criteria for submitting

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 Sep 10, 2013

Jkt 229001

a Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
(Form PHMSA F7000–1) is detailed in
§ 195.54.
Section 195.444 requires operators of
single-phase hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities that use Computational
Pipeline Monitoring (CPM) leak
detection systems to comply with the
standards set out in American
Petroleum Institute (API) publication
API 1130. API 1130 provides
information collection and maintenance
guidance on many factors such as
measurement capabilities,
communications reliability, pipeline
operating condition, and product type.
Compliance with API 1130, including
its recordkeeping requirements,
supports pipeline safety by ensuring the
proper functioning of CPM leak
detection systems.
Affected Public: Hazardous liquid
pipeline operators.
Accident Reporting and
Recordkeeping Burden:
Annual Responses: 897.
Annual Burden Hours: 52,429.
Frequency of collection: On Occasion.
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the proposed
collection of information for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques.

Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLC—
Corporate Family Transaction
Exemption

CFR 1180.2(d)(3) for a corporate family
transaction pursuant to which
Hainesport will transfer ownership and
operation of a line of railroad in
Hainesport, N.J., to a corporate affiliate.
According to Hainesport, it currently
owns and operates a series of tracks
serving several customers located in the
Hainesport Industrial Park in
Hainesport, N.J., where it connects with
a line owned and served by
Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail).1 Hainesport states that several
sidings point in an easterly direction
(East Line) and one or more sidings
point in a southerly direction (South
Line). Hainesport proposes to establish
a new corporate affiliate, Hainesport
Secondary Railroad, LLC (Hainesport
Secondary), to own and operate the East
Line. Hainesport will continue to own
and operate the South Line. Hainesport
states that it will enter into a haulage
agreement with Hainesport Secondary
that provides for Hainesport Secondary
to move traffic between the South Line
and the Conrail interchange on behalf of
Hainesport.
Unless stayed, the exemption will be
effective on September 25, 2013 (30
days after the verified notice was filed).
Applicant states that the parties intend
to consummate the proposed transaction
on or about September 26, 2013.
According to Hainesport, the purpose
of this transaction is to allow Hainesport
to separate the lines of railroad
according to the types of traffic each
handles. In addition, Hainesport states
that the transaction will facilitate the
sale of the South Line should
Hainesport’s owners choose to sell that
line in the future.
The line transfer is a transaction
within a corporate family exempted
from prior review and approval under
49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). Applicant states
that the transaction will not result in
adverse changes in service levels,
significant operational changes, or
changes in the competitive balance with
carriers outside the corporate family.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board
may not use its exemption authority to
relieve a rail carrier of its statutory
obligation to protect the interests of its
employees. Section 11326(c), however,
does not provide for labor protection for
transactions under 11324 and 11325
that involve only Class III rail carriers.
Accordingly, the Board may not impose
labor protective conditions here,
because all of the carriers involved are
Class III rail carriers.

Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLC
(Hainesport), a Class III railroad, filed a
verified notice of exemption under 49

1 See Hainesport Indus. R.R.—Acquis. &
Operation Exemption—Hainesport Indus. Park R.R.,
FD 34695 (STB served May 18, 2005).

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 5,
2013.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013–22049 Filed 9–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35760]

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM

11SEN1