[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46692-46693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23661]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. PS-117; Amdt. 195-64]
RIN 2137-AC87
Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Serving Plants and
Terminals
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule excludes from RSPA's safety standards for
hazardous liquid pipelines low-stress pipelines regulated for safety by
the U.S. Coast Guard and low-stress pipelines less than 1 mile long
that serve certain plants and transportation terminals without crossing
an offshore area or a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation. RSPA previously stayed enforcement of the standards against
these pipelines to mitigate compliance difficulties that did not appear
warranted by the safety risk. The rule change conforms the standards
with this enforcement policy and eliminates duplicative and
unnecessarily burdensome regulation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow at (202)366-4559 or
furrowl@rspa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1994, in response to a new pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C.
60102(k)), RSPA amended the hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards
in 49 CFR Part 195 to cover certain low-stress pipelines (59 FR 35465;
July 12, 1994). A low-stress pipeline is a pipeline that operates in
its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe (Sec. 195.3). Except for
onshore rural gathering lines and gravity-powered lines, the following
categories of low-stress pipelines were brought under the standards:
(1) Offshore pipelines; (2) onshore pipelines that transport highly
volatile liquids; (3) onshore pipelines located outside rural areas;
and (4) onshore pipelines located in waterways currently used for
commercial navigation (Sec. 195.1(b)(3)).
Interfacility transfer lines comprised the largest percentage of
low-stress pipelines brought under Part 195. These lines move hazardous
liquids for short distances between truck, rail, and vessel
transportation terminals, manufacturing plants (including petrochemical
plants), and oil refineries, or between these facilities and associated
storage or long-distance pipeline transportation.
Information in the rulemaking docket showed that bringing
interfacility transfer lines into full compliance with Part 195 would
be difficult for many operators. The primary difficulty was that
transfer lines are not customarily installed and operated according to
Part 195 standards. For example, considering their short length and low
operating stress, additional pipe wall thickness is often used to
resist expected corrosion instead of cathodic protection as Part 195
requires. Because of this and other disparities, operators were allowed
to delay compliance of their existing lines until July 12, 1996
(Sec. 195.1(c)).
Before the compliance deadline, interfacility transfer line
operators and their Washington representatives continued to argue that
meeting Part 195 requirements would not bring commensurate safety
benefits. The operators were particularly concerned about the strain on
resources and potential adverse effects of having to meet the separate
federal regulatory regimes of RSPA, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The operators explained that segments of interfacility transfer
lines on facility grounds are subject to OSHA's Process Safety
Management standards (29 CFR 1910.119). Compliance with these standards
affects operation of the off-grounds segments that come under Part 195.
Similarly, compliance with Part 195 on off-grounds segments would
affect operation of the on-grounds segments. Operators said this
overlapping effect would result in analogous administrative costs for
records, procedures, and manuals. Worse yet it would create
opportunities for mistakes when operating personnel have to meet
different requirements with similar objectives. In addition, for
transfer lines between vessels and marine transportation-related
facilities, the U.S. Coast Guard safety regulations (33 CFR Parts 154
and 156) would compound the overlap problem. Not only would applying
Part 195 to these marine terminal transfer lines duplicate agency
efforts within DOT, it also would leave the industry uncertain which
DOT safety standards apply in particular instances.
At the same time, we began to realize that carrying out adequate
compliance inspections on interfacility transfer lines would require a
significant increase in resources. We estimated that about 11,000 miles
of low-stress pipelines were brought under Part 195, with over a third
of the mileage composed of short interfacility transfer lines. Just the
job of finding and educating the many operators of these short lines
would likely be a major, protracted effort.
In consideration of these industry and government compliance
difficulties and the limited public risk involved, we concluded that
the potential benefits of complying with Part 195 did not justify the
expense for certain short interfacility transfer lines and lines
regulated by the Coast Guard. Consequently, we announced a stay of
enforcement of Part 195 against these lines (61 FR 24245; May 14,
1996). The stay applied to low-stress pipelines that are regulated by
the Coast Guard or that extend less than 1 mile outside plant or
terminal grounds without crossing an offshore area or any waterway used
for commercial navigation.
Following the stay of enforcement, we published a direct final rule
that excluded from Part 195 interfacility transfer lines covered by the
stay (62 FR 31364; June 9, 1997). However, because we received a
written adverse comment on this action, we withdrew the direct final
rule before it took effect (62 FR 52511; October 8, 1997).
Later, based on the direct final rule and comments we had received
on it, we again sought to remove the lines from Part 195 by issuing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (63 FR 9993; February 27, 1998). Four
persons submitted comments on this notice: the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, the Independent Liquid Terminals Association, the
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association, and the American
Petroleum Institute. Each of
[[Page 46693]]
the commenters supported the proposed action. The commenters agreed
with our assessment that the limited safety and environmental risk of
the lines does not warrant applying Part 195 standards on top of the
existing regulatory coverage by OSHA and the Coast Guard.
Advisory Committee Review
We presented the proposed rule change, including risk assessment
and supporting analyses, for consideration by the Technical Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee at a meeting in Washington,
D. C. on May 6, 1998. This statutory advisory committee reviews all
safety rules RSPA proposes for hazardous liquid pipelines. The
Committee comprises 15 members, representing industry, government, and
the public, who are qualified to evaluate hazardous liquid pipeline
safety standards. The Committee voted to recommend adoption of the
proposed rule without change. The Committee's report on the matter is
available in the docket of this proceeding.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this
action to be a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Therefore, OMB
has not reviewed this final rule document. DOT does not consider this
action significant under its regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034; February 26, 1979).
RSPA prepared a study of the costs and benefits of the Final Rule
that extended Part 195 to cover certain low-stress pipelines (Final
Regulatory Evaluation, Docket No. PS-117). That study, which
encompassed short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility transfer
lines, showed that the Final Rule would result in net benefits to
society, with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.5.
The Final Regulatory Evaluation determined costs and benefits of
the Final Rule on a mileage basis. But while costs were evenly
distributed, most of the expected benefits were projected from accident
data that did not involve short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility
transfer lines. Since the present action affects only these lines, it
is reasonable to believe the action will reduce more costs than
benefits. Thus, the present action should enhance the net benefits of
the Final Rule. Because of this likely economic effect, a further
regulatory evaluation of the Final Rule in Docket No. PS-117 or of the
present action is not warranted.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Low stress interfacility transfer lines covered by the present
action are associated primarily with the operation of refineries,
petrochemical and other industrial plants, and materials transportation
terminals. In general, these facilities are not operated by small
entities. Nonetheless, even if small entities operate low-stress
interfacility transfer lines, their costs will be lower because this
action reduces compliance burdens. Therefore, based on the facts
available about the anticipated impact of this rulemaking action, I
certify, pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Orders 13083 and 13084
This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on states, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, and also would not significantly or uniquely affect
Indian tribal governments. Therefore, the consultation requirements of
Executive Orders 13083 (``Federalism'') and 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'') do not apply.
Nevertheless, because states with hazardous liquid pipeline safety
programs ultimately monitor the compliance of intrastate pipelines with
the rule, RSPA routinely consults with state pipeline safety
representatives during early stages of rulemaking.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action reduces the pipeline mileage and number of operators
subject to Part 195. Consequently, it reduces the information
collection burden of Part 195 that is subject to review by OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information
collection requirements of Part 195 through May 31, 1999 (OMB No. 2137-
0047).
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends 49 CFR Part 195 as
follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. In Sec. 195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is
republished, and paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) This part does not apply to--
* * * * *
(3) Transportation through any of the following low-stress
pipelines:
(i) An onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that--
(A) Does not transport HVL;
(B) Is located in a rural area; and
(C) Is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;
(ii) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast
Guard; or
(iii) A pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck,
rail, or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1
mile long (measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross an
offshore area or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation;
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1998.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-23661 Filed 9-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
