[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52511-52512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26694]
[[Page 52511]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. PS-117; Amdt. 195-57A]
RIN 2137-AC87
Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Serving Plants and
Terminals
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws the direct final rule that excluded from
RSPA's safety standards for hazardous liquid pipelines low-stress
pipelines regulated 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. (62 FR 31364, June 9, 1997.) Applicable
procedural rules require withdrawal because an interested person
submitted an adverse comment on the direct final rule. RSPA's stay of
enforcement of the safety standards against these pipelines will remain
in effect until the matter is resolved through further rulemaking.
DATES: The direct final rule published at 62 FR 31364 is withdrawn on
October 7, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow, (202)366-4559, regarding
the subject matter of this notice. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-
5046, for copies of this document or other material in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to increased environmental
awareness, critical accidents involving low-stress pipelines, and
Congressional direction, RSPA extended its hazardous liquid pipeline
safety standards (49 CFR Part 195) to cover certain low-stress
pipelines of higher risk (Docket No. PS-117; 59 FR 35465; July 12,
1994). The term ``low-stress pipeline'' means a hazardous liquid
pipeline that is operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20
percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the line
pipe (Sec. 195.2). Except for onshore rural gathering lines and
gravity-powered lines, the following categories of low-stress pipelines
were brought under the regulations: pipelines that transport highly
volatile liquids, pipelines located onshore and outside rural areas,
pipelines located offshore, and pipelines located in waterways that are
currently used for commercial navigation (Sec. 195.1(b)(3)). Because
the rulemaking record showed that many low-stress pipelines probably
were not operated and maintained consistent with Part 195 requirements,
operators were allowed to delay compliance of their existing lines
until July 12, 1996, (Sec. 195.1(c)).
The largest proportion of low-stress pipelines brought under Part
195 consisted of interfacility transfer lines (about two-thirds of the
pipelines and one-third of the overall mileage). The remainder included
trunk lines and certain urban gathering lines. Interfacility transfer
lines move hazardous liquids locally between facilities such as truck,
rail, and vessel transportation terminals, manufacturing plants,
petrochemical plants, and oil refineries, or between these facilities
and associated storage or long-distance pipeline transportation. The
lines usually are short, averaging about a mile in length.
Interfacility transfer lines are also impacted by the Process
Safety Management regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.119). These regulations, which
involve hazard analysis and control, operating and maintenance
procedures, and personnel training, are intended to reduce the risk of
fires and explosions caused by the escape of hazardous chemicals from
facility processes. In addition, transfer lines between vessels and
marine transportation-related facilities are subject to safety
regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR Parts 154 and 156).
We considered the costs and potential confusion of this regulatory
overlap with Part 195 as well as information that showed that bringing
interfacility transfer lines into full compliance with Part 195 would
be difficult for many operators. Weighing these problems against the
need for risk reduction, we decided that the potential benefits of
complying with Part 195 do not justify the effort if the line is short
and does not cross an offshore area or a commercially navigable
waterway, or if the line is regulated by the Coast Guard.
Consequently, we announced a stay of enforcement of Part 195
against certain interfacility transfer lines (61 FR 24245; May 14,
1996). The stay applies 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
currently used for commercial navigation. We intend to keep the stay in
effect until modified or until we finally revise the Part 195
regulations to eliminate the need for the stay.
Following publication of the stay of enforcement, we issued a
direct final rule to amend Part 195 to comport with the stay (62 FR
31364; June 9, 1997). This direct final rule revised Sec. 195.1(b)(3)
to exclude from Part 195 those low-stress interfacility transfer lines
that were covered by the stay, while continuing to exclude other low-
stress pipelines that were previously excluded.
The procedures governing issuance of direct final rules are in 49
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 if an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an
adverse comment is received, RSPA will issue a timely notice in the
Federal Register to confirm that fact and withdraw the direct final
rule in whole or in part. Under the procedures, RSPA may then
incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or
may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Four persons submitted comments on the direct final rule: American
Petroleum Institute (API), California Department of Fish and Game
(CDF&G), California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), and
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). API made an editorial
comment, while CIPA and WSPA argued that the direct final rule should
be expanded to also exclude from Part 195 short low-stress pipelines
serving production/shipping facilities in urban areas.
However, CDF&G opposed the direct final rule. It argued, first,
that the Coast Guard's regulations are not an adequate substitute for
RSPA's because of weak pressure testing requirements and the absence of
cathodic protection requirements to guard against corrosion. Secondly,
it said the exclusion of short plant and terminal transfer lines should
apply only if a discharge would not impact marine waters of the United
States. In contrast, the direct final rule excluded these lines if they
did not cross offshore or a commercially navigable waterway.
Because of the adverse comment from CDF&G, we are withdrawing the
direct final rule. We intend to follow up this action with a notice of
proposed rulemaking that will propose to amend the application of Part
195 in a way similar to the direct final rule, but by taking into
account the comments we received on it.
[[Page 52512]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 3, 1997.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-26694 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
