[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16720]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. PS-117; Amdt. 195-53]
RIN 2137-AB86
Transportation of Hazardous Liquids at 20 Percent or Less of
Specified Minimum Yield Strength
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RSPA's hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations do not
apply to steel pipelines that operate at 20 percent or less of
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). This final rule extends the
regulations to three groups of these pipelines: pipelines that
transport highly volatile liquids, pipelines or pipeline segments in
populated areas, and pipelines or pipeline segments in navigable
waterways. Accidents have shown that regulating these pipelines or
pipeline segments would be in the interest of public safety. Moreover,
the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 provides that DOT may not exclude
hazardous liquid pipelines from regulation based solely on operation at
low internal stress. The final rule responds to this statutory
prohibition and will reduce the risk that hazardous liquid pipelines
present to public safety and the environment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow, (202) 366-2392, regarding
the subject matter of this final rule. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202)
366-4453, for copies of the final rule or other docket material.
Contact the Transportation Safety Institute, Pipeline Safety Division,
6500 South MacArthur Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 680-
4643, for a copy of 49 CFR part 195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
RSPA's hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations do not apply to
pipelines operating at a stress level of 20 percent or less of SMYS
(hereafter ``low-stress pipelines'') (see 49 CFR 195.1(b)(3)). DOT
excluded these pipelines from part 195 when it first issued the
regulations (34 FR 15473; October 4, 1969). However, serious accidents
have occurred on low-stress pipelines, suggesting that this blanket
exclusion is no longer in the interest of public safety. Moreover,
Section 206 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (PSA) (Pub. L. 102-508;
October 24, 1992), amended Sec. 203(b) of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Safety Act of 1979 (HLPSA) (49 App. U.S.C. 2002(b)) to provide that
``[i]n exercising any discretion under this Act, the Secretary shall
not provide an exception to regulation under this Act for any pipeline
facility solely on the basis of the fact that such pipeline facility
operates at low internal stress.''
On October 31, 1990, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking on low-stress pipelines (55 FR 45822). The notice described
accidents and rulemaking recommendations.
We analyzed data received in response to that notice to learn the
benefits and costs of regulating low-stress pipelines. The analysis
showed that many operators could face costs disproportionate to
benefits if RSPA regulated all low-stress pipelines subject to the
HLPSA. So we focused on those low-stress pipelines that pose a higher
risk to people and the environment. We identified the commodity in
transportation and the location of the pipeline as significant risk
factors.
RSPA then published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR
12213; March 3, 1993) that addressed these risk factors. The NPRM
proposed to apply the safety standards in part 195 and the drug testing
rules in 49 CFR part 199 to low-stress pipelines that transport highly
volatile liquids (HVL), traverse populated areas, or traverse navigable
waterways. These pipelines were targeted because failures of HVL
pipelines usually result in more deaths and injuries than other
pipeline failures, and failures in populated areas and navigable
waterways generally result in more damages to people and the
environment. Furthermore, the risk of outside force damage, a major
cause of pipeline accidents, is greater in populated areas and
navigable waterways, making failures there somewhat more likely.
The proposed rules would address the statutory restriction (quoted
above) on administrative discretion in regulating hazardous liquid
pipelines. The proposed rules also would respond to the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380), which requires DOT to regulate oil
pipelines to prevent pollution of navigable waters.
The NPRM proposed regulating four kinds of pipelines operating at
20 percent or less of SMYS: gathering lines, trunk lines, inter-
facility lines, and delivery lines. Unaffected were pipelines that part
195 does not cover for a reason besides low operating stress. For
example, the NPRM did not propose regulating low-stress rural gathering
lines. Part 195 does not apply to petroleum gathering lines in rural
areas, regardless of the pipeline's operating stress level (see
Sec. 195.1(b)(4)). Also, with regard to low-stress pipelines that do
not transport HVL, the proposed rules did not affect pipelines or
pipeline segments that lie outside populated areas or navigable
waterways. However, controls or equipment on excepted segments that are
necessary for the safe operation of pipeline segments inside populated
areas or navigable waterways (e.g., pressure controls) would have to
meet part 195 requirements.
II. Response to Comments
A. Introduction
This section of the preamble summarizes and discusses the major
written comments RSPA received on the proposed rules. Comments related
to the draft economic evaluation of costs and benefits are discussed in
the Final Regulatory Evaluation, which is in the docket.
B. Extent and Nature of Comments
The NPRM requested comments by May 3, 1993. RSPA received 13
written comments. The comments came from seven pipeline operators, one
pipeline trade association (the American Petroleum Institute (API)),
three state pipeline safety agencies, one federal agency (the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)), and one public interest
organization (the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)).
NTSB, two state agencies, and one operator voiced general support
for the NPRM. The rest of the commenters directed their remarks to
specific issues. Those issues are discussed below.
C. Rural Pipelines
NRDC and a state agency suggested that RSPA should not continue to
except non-HVL low-stress pipelines in rural areas from part 195. These
commenters argued that people and the environment in rural areas
deserve the same protection as people and the environment in populated
areas. They also said that serious accidents have occurred in rural
areas, and that low stress is not necessarily an indicator of low risk.
Although RSPA appreciates these commenters' concerns, we have
decided not to expand the present rulemaking to include the regulation
of additional low-stress pipelines in rural areas. However, the need to
regulate rural low-stress pipelines not covered by the present
rulemaking will be considered in upcoming proceedings.
Apart from production lines (which are not subject to the HLPSA),
most low-stress pipelines in rural areas probably are gathering lines.
Until passage of the PSA, rural gathering lines were not subject to
regulation under the HLPSA. However, the PSA enlarged RSPA's regulatory
authority under the HLPSA to include, with certain exceptions, those
rural gathering lines that warrant regulation based on location and
other risk factors. As required by Section 208 of the PSA, RSPA will
consider regulation of those lines in a future notice of proposed
rulemaking.
In addition, we will consider the need to regulate rural low-stress
pipelines that are not gathering lines principally on the basis of the
risk the low-stress lines pose to the environment. Through response
planning in cooperation with other federal and state agencies under the
Oil Pollution Act, we are developing a better concept of what
constitutes an environmentally-sensitive area for purposes of pipeline
environmental regulation. This planning should provide the groundwork
both for the future notice of proposed rulemaking on rural gathering
lines and for a rulemaking on other rural low-stress pipelines.
D. Adequacy of NPRM
API commented on the impact of the proposed rules on inter-facility
lines and delivery lines. It said the proposed rules would
significantly affect non-pipeline companies, such as refineries,
petrochemical plants, and terminals. But, according to API, these
companies may not have been aware of the NPRM. API advised RSPA to
publish a separate NPRM directed at inter-facility and delivery lines,
with at least a 6-month comment period.
RSPA does not agree that another rulemaking notice is needed.
The published NPRM clearly discussed the proposed applicability of
part 195 to inter-facility lines and delivery lines. The NPRM gave all
interested persons, including non-pipeline companies, an adequate
opportunity to comment on the proposed extension of part 195 to cover
these low-stress pipelines. In addition, some non-pipeline companies
were aware of the NPRM, because representatives of refineries submitted
comments. Other non-pipeline companies should have been aware that RSPA
was considering the need to regulate low-stress pipelines. As stated
above, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on low-
stress pipelines. Also, we specifically invited representatives of the
chemical, refining, and terminal industries to attend a meeting on low-
stress pipelines (56 FR 23538; May 22, 1991). At that meeting, RSPA
staff described all low-stress pipelines excluded from part 195.
E. Economically Marginal Gathering Lines
The NPRM requested comment on whether economically marginal
gathering lines (i.e., lines which have little profit) in populated
areas should receive separate treatment under the final rules. One
operator wanted to exclude from regulation petroleum gathering lines
that operate at less than 5 percent of SMYS and transport mostly
sediment and water. The operator said these lines present little or no
risk, but the cost of regulation would be high because of the large
number of lines.
API and an operator said many low-stress pipelines in populated
areas are associated with mature wells of diminishing production. These
commenters argued regulation would accelerate the marginal economic
status of the lines. They also suggested that more truck transportation
would follow, with greater risk to the public. The operator
particularly asked RSPA not to regulate low-stress pipelines
transporting crude oil that has a high flash point. These lines, the
commenter said, do not present a high enough risk to public safety to
make regulation cost/effective.
API commented that RSPA should apply just a few regulations to
pipelines made economically marginal by depleted oil fields and low oil
prices. It suggested that regulations applicable to leak detection
would be enough. The remaining regulations could be waived, API said,
based on evidence of negative economic impact and low risk to the area.
An operator also suggested RSPA consider granting waivers for marginal
systems based on evidence of a satisfactory safety program.
NTSB said regulation of a class of pipelines should be based solely
on the threat to public safety and the environment.
An operator of economically marginal lines said that if safety is
the goal of regulation, then profitable and marginal lines should be
treated alike.
To resolve the issue of economically marginal gathering lines, we
looked at the number of lines involved, the burden of the final rule,
and alternative transportation. The record shows that gathering lines
in populated areas comprise less than 10 percent of low-stress
pipelines subject to the final rule. Based on the comments, we believe
only a small fraction of this number is economically marginal,
transporting small volumes of oil from older, declining wells. These
pipelines would be subject to the part 195 regulations, which, on the
whole, parallel the industry standards in the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers' B31.4 code, Liquid Transportation Systems for
Hydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols.
The compliance burden, therefore, would be similar to the burden of
meeting the minimum standards the pipeline industry has set for itself.
Alternative rail or truck transportation, although perhaps more
expensive, is generally available to replace any gathering line
transportation that might be shut down. Thus, we do not believe
regulation of economically marginal low-stress gathering lines will
cause a significant hardship to much of the industry. Also, the
potential safety and environmental risks of economically marginal
gathering lines is probably higher than that of more profitable lines
because of the increased incentive to save costs. Consequently, we
decided not to include special provisions in part 195 for economically
marginal low-stress gathering lines.
Nevertheless, consistent with API's comment and RSPA's statutory
authority, we will consider requests for waiver of particular
requirements. Any request should be based on evidence of significantly
adverse economic impact, low risk, and adequate operation and
maintenance practices.
F. Compliance Time
1. Amount of Time
Proposed Sec. 195.1(d) would have allowed operators of existing
low-stress pipelines 1 year after publication of the final rule to
comply with parts 195 and 199. However, the NPRM requested comment on
whether 1 year would be enough time to prepare existing pipelines for
compliance.
An operator said 1 year would not be enough unless RSPA excludes
certain economically marginal gathering lines and accepts previous
hydrostatic testing. Otherwise the operator said 2 years would be
needed to establish an adequate compliance program. One operator said 1
year would be all right for HVL and trunk lines, but 3 years would be
needed for other lines. Another operator recommended 3 to 5 years for
low-stress pipelines that present a low risk because they carry crude
oil with a high flash point. Still another operator said that because
many distinct pipelines would be brought under the regulations
(possibly 3,000), the minimum compliance period should be 5 years. API
and an operator argued that 3, 4, or 5 years would be needed to carry
out all the requirements.
NTSB argued that 1 year would be sufficient because many operators
of low-stress pipelines have other pipelines that are subject to parts
195 and 199. Also, NTSB said compliance would mostly involve procedural
changes. It further said written procedures and documentation are
readily available for operators not already involved with parts 195 and
199. A state agency also said 1 year would be sufficient for operators
to prepare for compliance.
In view of the diversity of conditions and importance of plans,
procedures, and testing, RSPA agrees that many operators will need more
than 1 year to complete the steps necessary for existing pipelines to
meet parts 195 and 199. Of particular concern is the time needed to
craft plans and procedures that address the individual conditions of
the many distinct pipelines to which the final rule applies. However,
operators should not need more than 90 days to learn about the new
requirements and begin reporting accidents that might occur on low-
stress pipelines. Also, within 90 days operators should be able to meet
part 195 design, construction, and hydrostatic testing requirements on
portions of existing pipelines that they replace, relocate, or
otherwise change after the effective date of the final rule. Therefore,
final Sec. 195.1(c) allows existing low-stress pipelines 2 years from
today to comply with parts 195 and 199. However, accident reporting
under subpart B of part 195 begins 90 days from today. Also,
replacements, relocations, and other changes made to existing pipelines
on or after 90 days from today must meet the design, construction, and
hydrostatic testing requirements of part 195 before operation.
Note that the allowable compliance time for existing low-stress
pipelines is stated in final Sec. 195.1(c), instead of Sec. 195.1(d) as
proposed. We made this change because under existing Sec. 195.1(c), the
deadline has passed for carbon dioxide pipelines to comply with part
195 (July 12, 1992). Accordingly, the compliance time for carbon
dioxide pipelines is being removed from Sec. 195.1(c). This change
makes Sec. 195.1(c) available to state the compliance time for low-
stress pipelines.
G. Populated Area
RSPA proposed to define ``populated area'' as ``any onshore area
other than a rural area.'' Section 195.2 defines ``rural area'' as
``outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town,
village, or any other designated residential or commercial area such as
a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community
development.'' So a populated area would be an onshore area inside such
political, residential, or commercial area.
One operator suggested we exclude industrial areas from the
definition of populated area. Because of the lack of residential
housing and associated small businesses and shopping centers in these
areas, the operator said regulation would not increase safety. RSPA
strongly disagrees, however, because the rules in parts 195 and 199
protect people at large, not just people in residential communities.
Plant personnel and the environment in industrial areas are at risk
from low-stress pipelines.
An operator asked if part 195 would apply to an entire line section
between block valves if only part of the line section crosses a
populated area. As previously explained, the pipeline segment inside
the populated area and any equipment and controls located elsewhere
that are necessary for operation of the segment would have to meet part
195.
Part 195 currently uses the term ``populated area'' in
Secs. 195.234(e)(5), 195.260(c), and 195.306 (b)(1) and (c)(1). We did
not intend that the definition of ``populated area'' proposed in the
NPRM affect these rules. We proposed the definition merely to clarify
the proposed applicability of part 195 to low-stress pipelines.
Therefore, the final rule does not contain a definition of populated
area. Instead, final Sec. 195.1(b)(3), which defines the applicability
of part 195 to low-stress pipelines, incorporates the substance of the
proposed definition.
For similar reasons, we revised Sec. 195.1(b)(3) to include the
substance of the proposed definition of ``navigable waterway.'' Section
195.412(b) uses this term, but we intended the proposed definition to
clarify only the proposed applicability of part 195 to low-stress
pipelines.
H. Definition of Highly Volatile Liquid
Section 195.2 defines a ``highly volatile liquid'' as a hazardous
liquid that will form a vapor cloud when released to the atmosphere and
that has a vapor pressure exceeding 276 kPa (40 psia) at 37.8 deg.C
(100 deg.F). A ``hazardous liquid'' is defined as petroleum, petroleum
products, or anhydrous ammonia.
One commenter thought RSPA should amend the current definition of
``highly volatile liquid'' to exclude gas saturated petroleum/water
mixtures if the liquid remaining after release of the gas has a vapor
pressure of 40 psia or less at 100 deg.F. However, the definition does
not cover such mixtures. The deciding factors in the definition are (1)
the vapor pressure of the hazardous liquid in transportation; and (2)
whether that liquid will evaporate into a vapor cloud upon release to
the atmosphere. In the commenter's example, the gas in the mixture is
not relevant in determining the vapor pressure of the hazardous liquid
in transportation. Since the mixture without the gas has a vapor
pressure of 40 psia or less, it is not a highly volatile liquid.
I. Hydrostatic Testing
The NPRM proposed to require that operators hydrostatically test
new low-stress pipelines and existing low-stress pipelines that are
replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed. In addition, the NPRM
proposed that within 1 year after publication of the final rule,
existing low-stress pipelines transporting HVL must have been
hydrostatically tested under subpart E of part 195 or not operate above
80 percent of a previous qualified test or operating pressure (proposed
Sec. 195.302(c)).
API suggested that RSPA allow 2 years instead of 1 year to complete
the testing of existing HVL low-stress pipelines. Considering the total
effort companies will need to meet parts 195 and 199, RSPA agrees that
2 years is more reasonable than 1 year to prepare for compliance. As
stated above, final Sec. 195.1(c) provides a 2-year compliance time for
existing low-stress pipelines. This compliance time applies to testing
existing HVL low-stress pipelines under subpart E of part 195.
Therefore, a compliance time is not separately stated in final
Sec. 195.302(c).
Except for low-stress pipelines that are replaced, relocated, or
otherwise changed, the NPRM did not propose to require operators to
hydrostatically test existing non-HVL low-stress pipelines.
Furthermore, the NPRM explained that non-HVL low-stress pipelines were
not subject to the hydrostatic testing proposal in Docket PS-121 (56 FR
23538), which affected many older existing hazardous liquid pipelines.
However, under proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6), any non-HVL low-stress
pipeline not tested to subpart E standards could not be operated at
more than ``80 percent of the test pressure or 100 percent of the
highest operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for four
or more continuous hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts
or logs made at the time the test or operations were conducted.'' One
operator suggested that proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) would have the
effect of requiring hydrostatic testing of existing non-HVL low-stress
pipelines. Testing could be necessary if the requisite documentation
were not available, or planned operations were not consistent with
prior documented test or operating pressures. RSPA did not intend this
result. In fact, we proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) to assure that non-HVL
low-stress pipelines could continue to operate without hydrostatic
testing under subpart E. Upon further consideration, RSPA believes
proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) is unnecessary for that purpose, since
Sec. 195.302 clearly states which pipelines are subject to testing. So
we have not adopted proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) in the final rule.
Also, Sec. 195.406(a)(5) covers the substance of proposed
Sec. 195.406(a)(7), concerning the operating pressure of HVL low-stress
pipelines not tested to subpart E. Therefore, we have not adopted
proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(7) in the final rule.
One operator thought the proposed rules did not clearly state the
proposed exclusion of existing non-HVL low-stress pipelines from
hydrostatic testing requirements. RSPA agrees that subpart E should
clearly state the applicability of testing requirements to low-stress
pipelines. Thus, we revised existing Sec. 195.302, General
requirements, to clarify the exception of non-HVL low-stress pipelines
from testing under subpart E.
J. Pneumatic Testing
The NPRM requested comment on whether pneumatic testing should be
allowed as an alternative to hydrostatic testing. API and a state
agency favored pneumatic testing as an alternative.
Three operators and a state agency encouraged RSPA to allow
pneumatic testing as an alternative to hydrostatic testing. They
pointed out that pneumatic testing is permissible for low-stress
pipelines in petroleum service under the ASME B31.4 Code (section
437.4.3; 1989 edition). Two of these operators also favored pneumatic
testing because it would eliminate the need to collect and treat test
water.
One operator saw little advantage in pneumatically testing new low-
stress pipelines, because the cost of waste water disposal is not high
for new lines. Two operators thought pneumatic testing would be
hazardous for existing low-stress pipelines because of the potential to
mix hydrocarbons and air inside the pipeline.
Part 195 now permits pneumatic testing as an alternative to
hydrostatic testing (Sec. 195.306(c)) for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Also, RSPA's gas pipeline safety standards allow pneumatic testing as
an alternative to hydrostatic testing (49 CFR 192.503). In view of
these standards, the environmental advantages of pneumatic testing, and
the acceptability of pneumatic testing under the ASME B31.4 code, we
believe subpart E of part 195 should allow operators the option of
pneumatically testing low-stress pipelines. Therefore, the final rule
amends Sec. 195.306 to allow pneumatic testing as an alternative to
hydrostatic testing on low-stress pipelines.
RSPA recognizes that a mixture of air and residual hydrocarbons
could create a potential hazard if operators pneumatically test an
existing low-stress pipeline with air instead of inert gas. However,
this risk has not been a significant safety problem for gas pipelines
under 49 CFR part 192. It is common practice for operators to use
proper precautions if air is the test medium.
K. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
As stated in the NPRM, we have deferred proposing to regulate non-
HVL low-stress pipelines in rural ``environmentally sensitive areas''
because we have not yet developed a suitable definition of
``environmentally sensitive area.'' We also need time to learn the
extent to which pipeline spills affect such areas. Although the
definition of ``environmentally sensitive area'' in the oil spill
response plan regulations (49 CFR part 194) has been used for planning
purposes, we believe that definition is too broad to use under part
195. A definition of ``environmentally sensitive area'' under part 195
must be specific enough to distinguish pipelines and segments of
pipeline that are subject to the regulations.
As required by Sec. 202 of the PSA, RSPA has scheduled publication
of a notice of proposed rulemaking to define environmentally sensitive
areas, high density population areas, and navigable waterways. (See the
``Semiannual Regulatory Agenda'' at 59 FR 20662; April 25, 1994). We
also intend to propose, as required by the PSA, to require all
operators of hazardous liquid pipelines (including low-stress
pipelines) to identify and inventory their pipelines located in those
areas and waterways.
NRDC commented that there is ample evidence of pipeline damage in
rural environmentally sensitive areas outside navigable waterways, so
RSPA should not postpone regulation of low-stress pipelines in those
areas. NRDC suggested that RSPA use a broad definition of
environmentally sensitive area for purposes of regulating low-stress
pipelines, pending adoption of a definition required by the PSA. RSPA
has not expanded the final rule to cover low-stress pipelines in
environmentally sensitive areas outside the proposed areas of
regulation, because the NPRM did not propose regulation of those
pipelines at this time. However, we agree with NRDC's concerns about
environmental risks, and we will consider those concerns in future
rulemaking proceedings on rural low-stress pipelines. As mentioned
above, our increased understanding of environmentally sensitive area in
the pipeline context should provide a basis for future notices of
proposed rulemaking on rural gathering lines and other rural low-stress
pipelines.
One operator thought RSPA should postpone the regulation of low-
stress pipelines entirely until it proposes regulations for non-HVL
low-stress pipelines in rural environmentally sensitive areas. This
operator said additional work and effort could be avoided if it could
identify pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas before
establishing a compliance program for part 195. The commenter, however,
did not address the potential loss of benefits that would result if
regulation of low-stress pipelines were deferred pending decisions on
environmentally sensitive areas. Nevertheless, RSPA believes that once
compliance programs are in place, extending the programs to cover
additional pipeline segments, if required, should not be too difficult.
Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent an operator from bringing all
segments of a pipeline into compliance with part 195 and immediately
achieving the benefits.
L. Single Public Thoroughfare
In the NPRM (at 12215), RSPA mentioned that ``intra-facility piping
connecting adjacent facilities separated by navigable waterways or
separated by third party property other than single public
thoroughfares in populated areas would be subject to the regulations.''
A state agency and an operator asked us to clarify this single-public-
thoroughfare exception.
The intra-facility piping mentioned in the NPRM is functionally
equivalent to in-plant piping, which is excluded from regulation under
Sec. 195.1(b)(6). Essentially, intra-facility piping is transfer piping
used for plant processes. However, plants may be divided by a single
public thoroughfare, and transfer piping crosses the thoroughfare. A
public thoroughfare includes any road, from a country lane to an
interstate highway, but not a railroad or navigable waterway. Because
the operating conditions of transfer piping that crosses such
thoroughfares are comparable in most respects to those of other in-
plant piping, RSPA considers thoroughfare crossings to be in-plant
piping. This interpretation of Sec. 195.1(b)(6) is in effect now. We
will apply it to low-stress pipelines under this final rule. The
thoroughfare exception does not apply to inter-facility lines or
delivery lines, because these lines are different from in-plant piping.
One commenter, representing a refining department, suggested that
plant transfer piping that crosses property other than a thoroughfare
right-of-way, such as industrial property, should also qualify as in-
plant piping under Sec. 195.1(b)(6). This commenter also suggested that
RSPA exclude inter-facility lines in industrial areas from regulation.
Neither comment was adopted. We addressed the need to regulate low-
stress pipelines in industrial areas under the subheading ``G.
Populated Areas'' supra.
M. Offshore Pipelines
One operator commented that the NPRM lacked justification for the
proposed regulation of offshore low-stress pipelines. RSPA disagrees
because the accident consequences discussed in the NPRM and the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking could occur offshore. Also, the NPRM
discussed the need to prevent pollution of navigable waterways, which
includes offshore areas. In the final rule, Sec. 195.1(b)(3) clarifies
the coverage of offshore low-stress pipelines.
N. Drug Testing
One refinery operator suggested that RSPA except non-pipeline
companies from part 199, if they have a comparable drug program and few
low-stress pipelines. This commenter's primary concern was the cost of
administering two separate anti-drug programs, the company's own
program and another to satisfy part 199. RSPA believes this commenter
may have overestimated the burden of compliance with part 199.
Operators with comparable programs need not begin a separate part 199
program. They could modify their present programs as necessary to meet
part 199 standards. Separate plans would not be required, although the
parts of a single plan intended to meet part 199 would have to be clear
and distinct from separate company requirements. Separate tests and
analyses would be required only if the company's program required
testing for drugs not covered by part 199. Considering the savings in
compliance costs for operators with comparable programs and the
continuing concern that illegal drug use may adversely affect the safe
operation of pipelines, we did not adopt the refinery operator's
comment.
O. Marine Terminal Piping
One operator pointed out that the US Coast Guard already regulates
certain low-stress pipelines at marine terminals. This commenter
recommended that RSPA continue to except these pipelines from part 195.
Alternatively, the operator suggested RSPA establish a jurisdictional
boundary with the Coast Guard to avoid duplication of agency efforts. A
boundary, said the operator, also would eliminate the confusion over
which DOT regulations apply to low-stress pipelines at marine
terminals.
In port areas, RSPA and the US Coast Guard have independent
regulatory missions, as assigned by federal statutes. So, hazardous
liquid pipelines in port areas come under a combination of RSPA and
Coast Guard regulations. At present, we know of no conflicts or undue
burdens created by these separate regulatory programs. If such
difficulties surface with respect to low-stress pipelines, we will work
with the Coast Guard to minimize their impact.
P. Miscellaneous Clarifications
1. Pipelines Subject to Regulations
Commenting on low-stress pipelines that cross navigable waterways
in rural areas, API and an operator suggested that the final rule
clarify how much of the entire pipeline the regulations cover. The
operator thought only that part of the pipeline that actually crosses
the waterway should be covered.
As stated above, for non-HVL low-stress pipelines, we intended to
apply the regulations only to that part of the pipeline in the
populated area or navigable waterway. Final Sec. 195.1(b)(3) clarifies
this intended application by including ``or pipeline segments''
immediately after ``pipelines.''
One operator thought the wording of the proposed compliance period
(proposed Sec. 195.1(d)) was inconsistent with the proposed revision of
Sec. 195.1(b)(3). The operator thought proposed Sec. 195.1(d) implied
that operators of non-HVL low-stress pipelines located outside
populated areas and navigable waterways would have to comply with the
regulations within 1 year. To avoid this misconception, we changed
proposed Sec. 195.1(d) (now Sec. 195.1(c)) to show that the compliance
period applies only to existing low-stress pipelines covered by part
195. We also clarified the wording of proposed Sec. 195.1(b)(3) to
better identify low-stress pipelines that part 195 does not cover.
2. Definition of Low-Stress Pipeline
Another operator suggested the final rule define the various kinds
of low-stress pipelines covered. As stated above, the proposed rules
affected several kinds of distinct pipelines that operate over their
full length at 20 percent or less of SMYS, such as trunk lines and
inter-facility lines. Nevertheless, since the final rules do not refer
to low-stress pipelines by kind, there is no need to define each kind
of low-stress pipeline the rules cover.
We have, however, added a definition of the term ``low-stress
pipeline'' to Sec. 195.2, based on the present wording of
Sec. 195.1(b)(3). The definition enabled us to clarify that a pipeline
(in the sense of a continuing run of pipe and components used for
transportation) must operate from beginning to end at 20 percent or
less of SMYS to qualify as a low-stress pipeline. In drafting the final
rules, the definition also allowed us to simplify the wording of
several proposed rules.
3. Applicability of Design and Construction Standards
One proposed rule simplified by using the term ``low-stress
pipeline'' was Sec. 195.401(c)(5). The purpose of this proposed rule
was to state that the design and construction requirements of part 195
would not apply to low-stress pipelines on which construction begins
before the effective date of the final rule. Several commenters thought
proposed Sec. 195.401(c)(5) lacked clarity. So we revised it in the
style of similar provisions of Sec. 195.401(c).
In addition, one commenter pointed out that proposed
Sec. 195.401(c)(5) would not except existing low-stress pipelines from
design and construction rules applicable to certain interstate and
intrastate pipelines under Secs. 195.401(c)(1)-(3). The final rule
resolves this drafting problem by excluding low-stress pipelines from
the interstate and intrastate designations under Secs. 195.401(c)(1)-
(3).
4. Cathodic Protection
Section 195.414, Cathodic protection, is amended in paragraphs (b)
and (c). We separated requirements applicable to low-stress pipelines
from existing requirements applicable to interstate and intrastate
pipelines.
III. Advisory Committee
The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
is a federal advisory committee established under Section 204 of the
HLPSA (49 App. U.S.C. 2003). The committee advises DOT on the
feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of standards proposed
under the HLPSA.
On August 4, 1993, the Committee met in Washington, D.C. and
discussed the NPRM. After due deliberation, the committee voted
unanimously in favor of the proposed rules. The Committee's report and
a transcript of the meeting are available for inspection in the docket.
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule will increase current information collection
burdens under parts 195 and 199. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved this increased burden under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35). The OMB approval numbers
are 2137-0047, 2137-0578, 2137-0579, and 2137-0587.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
OMB considers this final rule a significant regulatory action under
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993).
Therefore, OMB has reviewed this final rule. DOT considers this final
rule significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
The comments RSPA received on the draft regulatory evaluation of
costs and benefits are summarized and discussed in the final regulatory
evaluation. The final evaluation, which shows that this final rule will
result in net benefits to society, is available for review in the
docket.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Few small entities operate low-stress pipelines subject to this final
rule.
D. Executive Order 12612
RSPA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685). RSPA has
determined that the action does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 195 is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2001 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.53.
2. In Sec. 195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is
republished, paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) This part does not apply to--
* * * * *
(3) Transportation of non-HVL through low-stress pipelines, except
for any pipeline or pipeline segment that is located--
(i) In an onshore area other than a rural area;
(ii) Offshore; or
(iii) In a waterway that is navigable in fact and currently used
for commercial navigation;
* * * * *
(c) A low-stress pipeline to which this part applies that exists on
July 12, 1994 need not comply with this part or part 199 of this
chapter until July 12, 1996, except as follows:
(1) Subpart B of this part applies beginning on October 10, 1994;
and
(2) Any replacement, relocation, or other change made to existing
pipelines after October 9, 1994 must comply with Subparts A and C
through E of this part.
3. In Sec. 195.2, the following definition is added:
Sec. 195.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 195.302, paragraph (b) and the introductory text of
paragraph (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.302 General requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Except for pipelines converted under Sec. 195.5, the following
pipelines may be operated without pressure testing under this subpart:
(1) Any hazardous liquid pipeline whose maximum operating pressure
is established under Sec. 195.406(a)(5) that is--
(i) An interstate pipeline constructed before January 8, 1971;
(ii) An interstate offshore gathering line constructed before
August 1, 1977;
(iii) An intrastate pipeline constructed before October 21, 1985;
or
(iv) A low-stress pipeline constructed before August 11, 1994 that
transports HVL.
(2) Any carbon dioxide pipeline constructed before July 12, 1991,
that--
(i) Has its maximum operating pressure established under
Sec. 195.406(a)(5); or
(ii) Is located in a rural area as part of a production field
distribution system.
(3) Any low-stress pipeline constructed before August 11, 1994 that
does not transport HVL.
(c) Except for pipelines that transport HVL onshore and low-stress
pipelines, the following compliance deadlines apply to pipelines under
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) of this section that have not been
pressure tested under this subpart:
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 195.306, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (d) is
added, to read as follows:
Sec. 195.306 Test medium.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, water must be used as the test medium.
* * * * *
(d) Air or inert gas may be used as the test medium in low-stress
pipelines.
6. Section 195.401(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.401 General requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in Sec. 195.5, no operator may operate any
part of any of the following pipelines unless it was designed and
constructed as required by this part:
(1) An interstate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, on
which construction was begun after March 31, 1970, that transports
hazardous liquid.
(2) An interstate offshore gathering line, other than a low-stress
pipeline, on which construction was begun after July 31, 1977, that
transports hazardous liquid.
(3) An intrastate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, on
which construction was begun after October 20, 1985, that transports
hazardous liquid.
(4) A pipeline on which construction was begun after July 11, 1991,
that transports carbon dioxide.
(5) A low-stress pipeline on which construction was begun after
August 10, 1994.
8. Sections 195.414(b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.414 Cathodic protection.
* * * * *
(b) Each operator shall electrically inspect each bare hazardous
liquid interstate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, before
April 1, 1975; each bare hazardous liquid intrastate pipeline, other
than a low-stress pipeline, before October 20, 1990; each bare carbon
dioxide pipeline before July 12, 1994; and each bare low-stress
pipeline before July 12, 1996 to determine any areas in which active
corrosion is taking place. The operator may not increase its
established operating pressure on a section of bare pipeline until the
section has been so electrically inspected. In any areas where active
corrosion is found, the operator shall provide cathodic protection.
Section 195.416(f) and (g) apply to all corroded pipe that is found.
(c) Each operator shall electrically inspect all breakout tank
areas and buried pumping station piping on hazardous liquid interstate
pipelines, other than low-stress pipelines, before April 1, 1973; on
hazardous liquid intrastate pipelines, other than low-stress pipelines,
before October 20, 1988; on carbon dioxide pipelines before July 12,
1994; and on low-stress pipelines before July 12, 1996 as to the need
for cathodic protection, and cathodic protection shall be provided
where necessary.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 1994.
Ana Sol Gutierrez,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-16720 Filed 7-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
