Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 190 (Monday, December 12, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 190 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8330-H8340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1710
PIPELINE SAFETY, REGULATORY CERTAINTY, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2845) to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for
enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline
transportation, to provide for enhanced reliability in the
transportation of the Nation's energy products by pipeline, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2845

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES
CODE; DEFINITIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011''.
(b) Amendment of Title 49, United States Code.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or a repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Definitions.--Any term used in this Act that is defined
in chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, shall have
the meaning given that term in that chapter.
(d) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of title 49, United States Code;
definitions; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Civil penalties.
Sec. 3. Pipeline damage prevention.
Sec. 4. Automatic and remote-controlled shut-off valves.
Sec. 5. Integrity management.
Sec. 6. Public education and awareness.
Sec. 7. Cast iron gas pipelines.
Sec. 8. Leak detection.
Sec. 9. Accident and incident notification.
Sec. 10. Transportation-related onshore facility response plan
compliance.
Sec. 11. Transportation-related oil flow lines.
Sec. 12. Cost recovery for design reviews.
Sec. 13. Biofuel pipelines.
Sec. 14. Carbon dioxide pipelines.
Sec. 15. Study of transportation of diluted bitumen.
Sec. 16. Study of non-petroleum hazardous liquids transported by
pipeline.
Sec. 17. Clarifications.
Sec. 18. Maintenance of effort.
Sec. 19. Administrative enforcement process.
Sec. 20. Gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines.
Sec. 21. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. CIVIL PENALTIES.

(a) General Penalties; Penalty Considerations.--Section
60122 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$175,000''; and
(B) in the last sentence by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$1,750,000''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B) by striking ``the ability to
pay,''.
(b) Operator Assistance in Investigations.--Section
60118(e) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Operator Assistance in Investigations.--
``(1) Assistance and access.--If the Secretary or the
National Transportation Safety Board investigates an accident
involving a pipeline facility, the operator of the facility
shall--

[[Page H8331]]

``(A) make available to the Secretary or the Board all
records and information that in any way pertain to the
accident (including integrity management plans and test
results); and
``(B) afford all reasonable assistance in the investigation
of the accident.
``(2) Operator assistance in investigations.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may impose a civil penalty
under section 60122 on a person who obstructs or prevents the
Secretary from carrying out inspections or investigations
under this chapter.
``(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph, the following
definitions apply:
``(i) Obstructs.--The term `obstructs' includes actions
that were known, or reasonably should have been known, to
prevent, hinder, or impede an investigation without good
cause.
``(ii) Good cause.--The term `good cause' includes, at a
minimum, restricting access to facilities that are not secure
or safe for non-pipeline personnel or visitors.''.
(c) Administrative Penalty Caps Inapplicable.--Section
60120(a)(1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The maximum amount of civil penalties for administrative
enforcement actions under section 60122 shall not apply to
enforcement actions under this section.''.
(d) Judicial Review of Administrative Enforcement Orders.--
Section 60119(a) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``and Waiver
Orders'' and inserting ``, Orders, and Other Final Agency
Actions''; and
(2) by striking ``about an application for a waiver under
section 60118(c) or (d) of this title'' and inserting ``under
this chapter''.

SEC. 3. PIPELINE DAMAGE PREVENTION.

(a) Minimum Standards for State One-Call Notification
Programs.--Section 6103(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Minimum Standards.--
``(1) In general.--In order to qualify for a grant under
section 6106, a State one-call notification program, at a
minimum, shall provide for--
``(A) appropriate participation by all underground facility
operators, including all government operators;
``(B) appropriate participation by all excavators,
including all government and contract excavators; and
``(C) flexible and effective enforcement under State law
with respect to participation in, and use of, one-call
notification systems.
``(2) Exemptions prohibited.--In order to qualify for a
grant under section 6106, a State one-call notification
program may not exempt municipalities, State agencies, or
their contractors from its one-call notification system
requirements.''.
(b) State Damage Prevention Programs.--Section 60134(a) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking ``(b).'' and inserting
``(b); and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) does not provide any exemptions to municipalities,
State agencies, or their contractors from its one-call
notification system requirements.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(d) Third Party Damage.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a
study on the impact of third party damage on pipeline safety.
(2) Contents.--The study shall include--
(A) an analysis of the frequency and severity of different
types of third party damage incidents;
(B) an analysis of exemptions to the one-call notification
system requirements in each State;
(C) a comparison of exemptions to the one-call notification
system requirements in each State to the types of third party
damage incidents in that State; and
(D) an analysis of the potential safety benefits and
adverse consequences of eliminating all exemptions for
mechanized excavation from State one-call notification
systems.
(3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a
report on the results of the study.

SEC. 4. AUTOMATIC AND REMOTE-CONTROLLED SHUT-OFF VALVES.

Section 60102 is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (j)(3); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Automatic and Remote-Controlled Shut-Off Valves for
New Transmission Pipelines.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require by regulation,
if determined appropriate by the Secretary, the use of
automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves, or equivalent
technology, where economically, technically, and
operationally feasible on transmission pipeline facilities
constructed or entirely replaced after the date on which the
Secretary issues the final rule containing such requirement.
``(2) Factors for consideration.--In determining whether to
proceed with a rulemaking under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall consider the factors specified in subsection (b)(2).''.

SEC. 5. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
evaluate--
(1) whether integrity management system requirements, or
elements thereof, should be expanded beyond high consequence
areas; and
(2) with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities,
whether applying integrity management program requirements,
or elements thereof, to additional areas would mitigate the
need for class location requirements.
(b) Repair Criteria.--In conducting the evaluation under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider applying repair
criteria, such as pressure reductions and special
requirements for scheduling remediation, to areas that are
not high consequence areas.
(c) Report.--Based on the evaluation to be conducted under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a
report containing the Secretary's analysis and findings
regarding--
(1) expansion of integrity management requirements, or
elements thereof, beyond high consequence areas; and
(2) with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities,
whether applying the integrity management program
requirements, or elements thereof, to additional areas would
mitigate the need for class location requirements.
(d) Data Reporting.--The Secretary shall collect any
relevant data necessary to complete the evaluation required
by subsection (a).
(e) Technical Correction.--Section 60109(c)(3)(B) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) Subject to paragraph (5), periodic reassessments of
the facility, at a minimum of once every 7 calendar years,
using methods described in subparagraph (A). Such deadline
shall be extended for an additional 6 months if the operator
submits written notice to the Secretary that includes an
explanation of the need for the extension.''.
(f) Rulemaking Requirements.--
(1) Review period defined.--In this subsection, the term
``review period'' means the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act and ending on the earlier of--
(A) the date that is 1 year after the date of completion of
the report under subsection (c); or
(B) the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Congressional authority.--In order to provide Congress
the necessary time to review the results of the report
required by subsection (c) and implement appropriate
recommendations, the Secretary shall not, during the review
period, proceed with a rulemaking to prescribe regulations
described in paragraph (3).
(3) Standards.--Following the review period, the Secretary
may, as appropriate, prescribe regulations that--
(A) expand integrity management system requirements, or
elements thereof, beyond high consequence areas; and
(B) remove redundant class location requirements for gas
transmission pipeline facilities that are regulated under an
integrity management program adopted and implemented under
section 60109(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code.
(4) Savings clause.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, the Secretary, during the review period, may
proceed to a rulemaking to prescribe regulations described in
paragraph (3), and may prescribe the regulations, if the
Secretary determines that a condition that poses a risk to
public safety, property, or the environment is present or an
imminent hazard exists and that the rulemaking will address
the risk or hazard.
(B) Imminent hazard defined.--In subparagraph (A), the term
``imminent hazard'' means the existence of a condition
related to pipelines or pipeline operations that presents a
substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe
personal injury, or substantial endangerment to health,
property, or the environment may occur.
(g) Report to Congress on Risk-Based Pipeline Reassessment
Intervals.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall evaluate--
(1) whether risk-based reassessment intervals are a more
effective alternative for managing risks to pipelines in
high-consequence areas once baseline assessments are complete
when compared to a 7-year reassessment interval;
(2) the number of anomalies found in baseline assessments
required under section 60109(c)(3)(A) of title 49, United
States Code, as compared to the number of anomalies found in
reassessments required under section 60109(c)(3)(B) of such
title; and
(3) the progress made in incorporating the recommendations
in GAO Report 06-945 and the current relevance of
recommendations not incorporated to date.
(h) High Consequence Area Defined.--In this section, the
term ``high consequence area'' means an area described in
section 60109(a) of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 6. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS.

(a) National Pipeline Mapping System.--
(1) Map of high consequence areas.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(A) maintain, as part of the National Pipeline Mapping
System, a map of all designated high consequence areas (as
described in section 60109(a) of title 49, United States
Code) in which pipelines are required to meet integrity
management safety regulations, excluding any proprietary or
sensitive security information; and
(B) update the map biennially.
(2) Program to promote awareness of national pipeline
mapping system.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and
implement a program promoting greater awareness of the
existence of the National Pipeline Mapping System to State
and local emergency responders and other interested parties.
The program shall

[[Page H8332]]

include guidance on how to use the National Pipeline Mapping
System to locate pipelines in communities and local
jurisdictions.
(b) Information to Emergency Response Agencies.--
(1) Guidance.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance to
owners and operators of pipeline facilities on the importance
of providing system-specific information about their pipeline
facilities to emergency response agencies of the communities
and jurisdictions in which those facilities are located.
(2) Consultation.--Before issuing guidance under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consult with owners and operators of
pipeline facilities to determine the extent to which the
owners and operators are already providing system-specific
information about their pipeline facilities to emergency
response agencies.

SEC. 7. CAST IRON GAS PIPELINES.

(a) Follow-Up Surveys.--Section 60108(d) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) Not later than December 31, 2012, and every 2 years
thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct a follow-up survey to
measure the progress that owners and operators of pipeline
facilities have made in implementing their plans for the safe
management and replacement of cast iron gas pipelines.''.
(b) Status Report.--Not later than December 31, 2013, the
Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a
report that--
(1) identifies the total mileage of cast iron gas pipelines
in the United States; and
(2) evaluates the progress that owners and operators of
pipeline facilities have made in implementing their plans for
the safe management and replacement of cast iron gas
pipelines.

SEC. 8. LEAK DETECTION.

(a) Leak Detection Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and Committee on Energy and
Commerce a report on leak detection systems utilized by
operators of hazardous liquid pipeline facilities and
transportation-related flow lines.
(2) Contents.--The report shall include--
(A) an analysis of the technical limitations of current
leak detection systems, including the systems' ability to
detect ruptures and small leaks that are ongoing or
intermittent, and what can be done to foster development of
better technologies; and
(B) an analysis of the feasibility of establishing
technically, operationally, and economically feasible
standards for the capability of such systems to detect leaks,
and the safety benefits and adverse consequences of requiring
operators to use leak detection systems.
(b) Rulemaking Requirements.--
(1) Review period defined.--In this subsection, the term
``review period'' means the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act and ending on the earlier of--
(A) the date that is 1 year after the date of completion of
the report under subsection (a); or
(B) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Congressional authority.--In order to provide Congress
the necessary time to review the results of the report
required by subsection (a) and implement appropriate
recommendations, the Secretary shall not, during the review
period, proceed with a rulemaking to prescribe regulations
described in paragraph (3).
(3) Standards.--Following the review period, the Secretary
may, as appropriate, prescribe regulations that--
(A) require operators of hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities to use leak detection systems; and
(B) establish technically, operationally, and economically
feasible standards for the capability of such systems to
detect leaks.
(4) Savings clause.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, the Secretary, during the review period, may
proceed to a rulemaking to prescribe regulations described in
paragraph (3), and may prescribe the regulations, if the
Secretary determines that a condition that poses a risk to
public safety, property, or the environment is present or an
imminent hazard exists and that the rulemaking will address
the risk or hazard.
(B) Imminent hazard defined.--In subparagraph (A), the term
``imminent hazard'' means the existence of a condition
related to pipelines or pipeline operations that presents a
substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe
personal injury, or substantial endangerment to health,
property, or the environment may occur.

SEC. 9. ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT NOTIFICATION.

(a) Revision of Regulations.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation shall revise regulations issued under sections
191.5 and 195.52 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to
establish specific time limits for telephonic or electronic
notice of accidents and incidents involving pipeline
facilities to the Secretary and the National Response Center.
(b) Minimum Requirements.--In revising the regulations, the
Secretary, at a minimum, shall--
(1) establish time limits for telephonic or electronic
notification of an accident or incident to require such
notification not less than 1 hour and not more than 2 hours
after discovery of the accident or incident;
(2) review procedures for owners and operators of pipeline
facilities and the National Response Center to provide
thorough and coordinated notification to all relevant State
and local emergency response officials, including 911
emergency call centers, for the jurisdictions in which those
pipeline facilities are located in the event of an accident
or incident, and revise such procedures as appropriate; and
(3) require such owners and operators to revise their
initial telephonic or electronic notice to the Secretary and
the National Response Center with an estimated amount of the
product released, an estimated number of fatalities and
injuries, if any, and any other information determined
appropriate by the Secretary within 24 to 48 hours of the
accident or incident, to the extent practicable.
(c) Updating of Reports.--After receiving revisions
described in subsection (b)(3), the National Response Center
shall update the initial report on an accident or incident
instead of generating a new report.

SEC. 10. TRANSPORTATION-RELATED ONSHORE FACILITY RESPONSE
PLAN COMPLIANCE.

(a) In General.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
311(m)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1321(m)(2)) are each amended by striking
``Administrator or'' and inserting ``Administrator, the
Secretary of Transportation, or''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 311(b)(6)(A) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A))
is amended by striking ``operating or'' and inserting
``operating, the Secretary of Transportation, or''.

SEC. 11. TRANSPORTATION-RELATED OIL FLOW LINES.

Section 60102, as amended by this Act, is further amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Transportation-Related Oil Flow Lines.--
``(1) Data collection.--The Secretary may collect
geospatial or technical data on transportation-related oil
flow lines, including unregulated transportation-related oil
flow lines.
``(2) Transportation-related oil flow line defined.--In
this subsection, the term `transportation-related oil flow
line' means a pipeline transporting oil off of the grounds of
the well where it originated across areas not owned by the
producer, regardless of the extent to which the oil has been
processed, if at all.
``(3) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection authorizes
the Secretary to prescribe standards for the movement of oil
through production, refining, or manufacturing facilities, or
through oil production flow lines located on the grounds of
wells.''.

SEC. 12. COST RECOVERY FOR DESIGN REVIEWS.

(a) In General.--Section 60117(n) is amended to read as
follows:
``(n) Cost Recovery for Design Reviews.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Review costs.--For any project described in
subparagraph (B), if the Secretary conducts facility design
safety reviews in connection with a proposal to construct,
expand, or operate a new gas or hazardous liquid pipeline
facility or liquefied natural gas pipeline facility, the
Secretary may require the person proposing the project to pay
the costs incurred by the Secretary relating to such reviews.
If the Secretary exercises the cost recovery authority
described in this subsection, the Secretary shall prescribe a
fee structure and assessment methodology that is based on the
costs of providing these reviews and shall prescribe
procedures to collect fees under this subsection. The
Secretary shall not collect design safety review fees under
this chapter and section 60301 for the same design safety
review.
``(B) Projects to which applicable.--Subparagraph (A)
applies to any project that--
``(i) has design and construction costs totaling at least
$3,400,000,000, as adjusted for inflation, based on a good
faith estimate developed by the person proposing the project;
or
``(ii) uses new or novel technologies or design.
``(2) Notification.--For any new pipeline facility
construction project for which the Secretary will conduct
design reviews, the person proposing the project shall notify
the Secretary and provide the design specifications,
construction plans and procedures, and related materials at
least 120 days prior to the commencement of construction. If
the Secretary determines that the proposed design of the
project is inconsistent with pipeline safety, the Secretary
shall provide written comments, feedback, and guidance on the
project on or before the 60th day following the date of
receipt of the design specifications, construction plans and
procedures, and related materials for the project.
``(3) Pipeline safety design review fund.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established a Pipeline
Safety Design Review Fund in the Treasury of the United
States.
``(B) Deposits.--The Secretary shall deposit funds paid
under this subsection into the Fund.
``(C) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available to the
Secretary, in amounts specified in appropriations Acts, to
offset the costs of conducting facility design safety reviews
under this subsection.
``(4) No additional permitting authority.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to
require a person to obtain a permit before beginning design
and construction in connection with a project described in
paragraph (1)(B).''.
(b) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
issue guidance to clarify the meaning of the term ``new or
novel technologies or design'' as used in section 60117(n) of
title 49, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a) of
this section.

SEC. 13. BIOFUEL PIPELINES.

Section 60101(a)(4) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;

[[Page H8333]]

(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) non-petroleum fuels, including biofuels, that are
flammable, toxic, or corrosive or would be harmful to the
environment if released in significant quantities; and''.

SEC. 14. CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINES.

Section 60102(i) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) Pipelines Transporting Carbon Dioxide.--
``(1) Minimum safety standards.--The Secretary shall
prescribe minimum safety standards for the transportation of
carbon dioxide by pipeline in a gaseous state.
``(2) Standards applicable to certain pipelines.--For
pipelines that transport carbon dioxide in both a liquid and
gaseous state, the Secretary shall apply standards, in effect
on the date of enactment of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, for the
transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline in a liquid
state to the transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline in
a gaseous state.''.

SEC. 15. STUDY OF TRANSPORTATION OF DILUTED BITUMEN.

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a
comprehensive review of hazardous liquid pipeline facility
regulations to determine whether these regulations are
sufficient to regulate pipeline facilities used for the
transportation of diluted bitumen. In conducting this review,
the Secretary shall conduct an analysis of whether any
increase in risk of release exists for pipeline facilities
transporting diluted bitumen. The Secretary shall report the
results of this review to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Committee
on Energy and Commerce.

SEC. 16. STUDY OF NON-PETROLEUM HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS TRANSPORTED
BY PIPELINE.

The Secretary of Transportation may conduct an analysis of
the transportation of non-petroleum hazardous liquids by
pipeline facility for the purpose of identifying the extent
to which pipeline facilities are currently being used to
transport non-petroleum hazardous liquids, such as chlorine,
from chemical production facilities across land areas not
owned by the producer that are accessible to the public. The
analysis should identify the extent to which the safety of
the pipeline facilities is unregulated by the States and
evaluate whether the transportation of such chemicals by
pipeline facility across areas accessible to the public would
present significant risks to public safety, property, or the
environment in the absence of regulation. The results of the
analysis shall be made available to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Committee on Energy and Commerce.

SEC. 17. CLARIFICATIONS.

(a) Amendment of Procedures Clarification.--Section
60108(a)(1) is amended by striking ``an intrastate'' and
inserting ``a''.
(b) Owner and Operator Clarification.--Section
60102(a)(2)(A) is amended by striking ``owners and
operators'' and inserting ``any or all of the owners or
operators''.

SEC. 18. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

Section 60107(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``For each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the
Secretary shall grant such a wavier to a State if the State
can demonstrate an inability to maintain or increase the
required funding share of its pipeline safety program at or
above the level required by this subsection due to economic
hardship in that State. For fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal
year thereafter, the Secretary may grant such a waiver to a
State if the State can make the demonstration described in
the preceding sentence.''.

SEC. 19. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.

(a) Issuance of Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe
regulations--
(A) requiring hearings under sections 60112, 60117, 60118,
and 60122 to be convened before a presiding official;
(B) providing the opportunity for any person requesting a
hearing under section 60112, 60117, 60118, or 60122 to
arrange for a transcript of that hearing, at the expense of
the requesting person;
(C) ensuring expedited review of any order issued pursuant
to section 60112(e);
(D) implementing a separation of functions between
personnel involved with investigative and prosecutorial
activities and advising the Secretary on findings and
determinations; and
(E) prohibiting ex-parte communication relevant to the
question to be decided in the case by parties to an
investigation or hearing.
(2) Presiding official.--The regulations prescribed under
this subsection shall--
(A) define the term ``presiding official'' to mean the
person who conducts any hearing relating to civil penalty
assessments, compliance orders, safety orders, or corrective
action orders; and
(B) require that the presiding official must be an attorney
on the staff of the Deputy Chief Counsel that is not engaged
in investigative or prosecutorial functions, including the
preparation of notices of probable violations, notices
relating to civil penalty assessments, notices relating to
compliance, or notices of proposed corrective actions.
(3) Expedited review.--The regulations prescribed under
this subsection shall define the term ``expedited review''
for the purposes of paragraph (1)(C).
(b) Standards of Judicial Review.--Section 60119(a) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) A judicial review of agency action under this section
shall apply the standards of review established in section
706 of title 5.''.

SEC. 20. GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID GATHERING LINES.

(a) Review.--The Secretary of Transportation shall complete
a review of existing Federal and State regulations for gas
and hazardous liquid gathering lines located onshore and
offshore in the United States, including within the inlets of
the Gulf of Mexico.
(b) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a
report on the results of the review.
(2) Recommendations.--The report shall include the
Secretary's recommendations with respect to--
(A) the sufficiency of existing Federal and State laws and
regulations to ensure the safety of gas and hazardous liquid
gathering lines;
(B) quantifying the economical and technical practicability
and challenges of applying existing Federal regulations to
gathering lines that are currently not subject to Federal
regulation when compared to the public safety benefits; and
(C) subject to a risk-based assessment, the need to modify
or revoke existing exemptions from Federal regulation for gas
and hazardous liquid gathering lines.

SEC. 21. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--Section 60125(a) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--
``(1) In general.--To carry out the provisions of this
chapter related to gas and hazardous liquid and section 12 of
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (49 U.S.C. 60101
note; Public Law 107-355), there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Transportation for each of
fiscal years 2012 through 2015, from fees collected under
section 60301, $88,014,000, of which $4,686,000 is for
carrying out such section 12 and $34,461,000 is for making
grants.
``(2) Trust fund amounts.--In addition to the amounts
authorized to be appropriated by paragraph (1), there is
authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2012
through 2015 from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry
out the provisions of this chapter related to hazardous
liquid and section 12 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act
of 2002 (49 U.S.C. 60101 note; Public Law 107-355),
$18,905,000, of which $2,185,000 is for carrying out such
section 12 and $4,985,000 is for making grants.''.
(b) Emergency Response Grants.--Section 60125(b)(2) is
amended by striking ``2007 through 2010'' and inserting
``2012 through 2015''.
(c) One-Call Notification Programs.--Section 6107 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2007 through 2010.''
and inserting ``2012 through 2015.'';
(2) in subsection (b) by striking ``2007 through 2010.''
and inserting ``2012 through 2015.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c).
(d) State Damage Prevention Programs.--Section 60134 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to provide grants under
this section $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through
2015. Such funds shall remain available until expended.''.
(e) Community Pipeline Safety Information Grants.--Section
60130 is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``to grant recipients and their
contractors'' after ``this section''; and
(B) by inserting ``, for any type of advocacy activity for
or against a pipeline construction or expansion project,''
after ``for lobbying''; and
(2) in subsection (d) by striking ``2010'' and inserting
``2015''.
(f) Pipeline Transportation Research and Development.--
Section 12 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (49
U.S.C. 60101 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Ongoing pipeline transportation research and
development.--
``(A) In general.--After the initial 5-year program plan
has been carried out by the participating agencies, the
Secretary of Transportation shall prepare a research and
development program plan every 5 years thereafter and shall
transmit a report to Congress on the status and results-to-
date of implementation of the program every 2 years.
``(B) Consultation.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
comply with the consultation requirements of subsection
(d)(2) when preparing the program plan and in the selection
and prioritization of research and development projects.
``(C) Funding from non-federal sources.--When carrying out
research and development activities, the Secretary, to the
greatest extent practicable, shall obtain funding for
research and development projects from non-Federal
sources.''; and
(2) in subsection (f) by striking ``2003 through 2006.''
and inserting ``2012 through 2015.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) each will control 20 minutes.

[[Page H8334]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

General Leave

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous materials on H.R. 2845.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This important legislation improves safety, enhances reliability, and
provides the regulatory certainty necessary to create jobs.
I am very proud of the work that has gone into this bill, both across
the aisle and between the committees. This legislation represents a
bipartisan and bicameral agreement reached by the House Transportation
Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I am also proud this
legislation is supported by both the pipeline industry and key safety
advocates.
The United States has the largest network of energy pipelines in the
world, and pipelines are the energy lifelines that power nearly all of
our daily activities. The hallmark of America's 2.5 million-mile
pipeline network continues to be that it delivers extraordinary volumes
of product reliably, safely, efficiently, and economically. Pipelines
are the safest and the most cost-effective means to transport the
natural gas and hazardous liquid products that fuel our economy. Since
1986, the volume of energy products transported through pipelines has
increased by one-third, yet the number of reportable incidents has
decreased by 28 percent. While the data show that Federal pipeline
safety programs have been on the right track, recent pipeline incidents
suggest there continues to be room for improvement.
H.R. 2845 builds on our strong commitment to the improved safety and
enhanced reliability of the transportation of our Nation's energy
products by pipeline.
Specifically, the legislation reauthorizes the Federal pipeline
safety programs of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration through FY 2015. It improves pipeline transportation by
strengthening the enforcement of our current laws and by filling gaps
in existing laws where necessary. It provides the regulatory certainty
necessary for pipeline owners and operators to plan infrastructure
investments and create jobs. It ensures a sensible and practical
regulatory approach to improving safety that applies cost-benefit
principles. It protects and preserves congressional authority, keeping
regulators on a tight leash by ensuring certain key rulemakings are not
finalized until Congress has an opportunity to act. It addresses
National Transportation Safety Board recommendations resulting from
recent pipeline incidents with balanced and reasonable responses,
including addressing the incidents in California, Michigan, Montana,
and Pennsylvania.
There are a few key priority issues I want to highlight in this
legislation.
During my time in Congress, I've been disappointed to see the
executive branch and unelected bureaucrats attempt to take more and
more control and decisionmaking authority from Congress. These actions
harm Congress as an institution and make our government further and
further removed from the American people.
In this bill, when we call for substantial changes to the Federal
pipeline safety program, we ask the administration to consider specific
factors, take into account costs and benefits, and provide Congress
with recommendations on how the programs should be changed. Congress
will then have an opportunity to act on those recommendations before
key rulemakings are finalized. This approach preserves congressional
authority and will keep regulators from overreaching.
Another issue I've highlighted on the floor in the past is damage
prevention, which is the leading cause of pipeline incidents. Our
legislation improves pipeline damage prevention and cracks down on
third-party pipeline damage by eliminating unnecessary exemptions.
At this time I would also like to urge everybody to call before you
dig and to dial 8-1-1, which is an extremely important part of this
program in preventing third-party damage in this country.
In field hearings leading up to the drafting of this legislation, my
colleague from Pennsylvania, Jim Gerlach, suggested ways in which we
could use State and local government personnel as force multipliers to
supplement Federal pipeline safety inspectors. We have built on this
idea. In this bill, we have included a provision that will allow PHMSA
to provide training to State and local government personnel and to
potentially establish regional training centers paid for by the
pipeline industry at no cost to the Federal Government.
There is great interest in this unique and permissive approach in my
home State of Pennsylvania, and I will closely be following the
implementation of these provisions.
I was deeply disappointed that language I had included in our
committee's version of this legislation regarding pipeline permitting
issues was not included in the final bill. We have big issues with the
Army Corps of Engineers in Pennsylvania in the permitting of pipes. The
Corps is encroaching on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, and it has led to significant increases in permitting
timelines for projects with limited environmental impacts. My colleague
from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, has experienced similar issues in his
home State, all related to the Marcellus shale gas. In the interest of
compromise and of moving this legislation forward, I was willing to
withdraw my language and settle on a study on this critical issue, but
I will continue to monitor this issue closely in Pennsylvania and
across the United States.
I am proud of this bill and of the hard work that Chairman Mica,
Ranking Member Rahall, Subcommittee Ranking Member Brown, and the
staffs have put in on both sides of the aisle. I would especially like
to point out Jim Tymon and Steve Martinko, who have logged countless
hours in helping to move this bill forward. I also want to thank the
Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Fred Upton and Ranking Member
Waxman, and their staffs for their efforts.
Our legislation makes a strong program even stronger by keeping in
place regulatory measures that are working and by making adjustments to
those that don't. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this
important legislation that increases safety and creates jobs.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology,
Washington, DC, November 22, 2011.
Hon. John L. Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology in H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. The bill contains
provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, including those amending
Section 12 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (49
U.S.C. 60101 Note; Public Law 107-355).
I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this
legislation before the House of Representatives in an
expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further
consideration of this bill in Committee. This, of course,
being conditional on our mutual understanding that language
negotiated with the Science, Space, and Technology Committee
will be included in this or similar legislation considered on
the House floor. However, agreeing to waive consideration of
this bill should not be construed as waiving, reducing, or
affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
Additionally, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology expressly reserves its authority to seek conferees
on any provision within its jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference that may be convened on this, or any
similar legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any
request by the Committee for conferees on H.R. 2845 as well
as any similar or related legislation.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for
the positive outcome of the negotiation between our
Committees resulting in provisions that seek to ensure a
continued positive role for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology in the area of pipeline
transportation research and development.
I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be
included in the report on H.R. 2845

[[Page H8335]]

and also be placed in the Congressional Record during
consideration of this bill on the House floor.
I look forward to working with you on matters of mutual
concern.
Sincerely,

Ralph M. Hall,

Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Enclosure.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, November 21, 2011.
Hon. Ralph M. Hall,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2845, the ``Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011.'' The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure recognizes the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology has a jurisdictional interest H.R. 2845, and I
appreciate your effort to facilitate consideration of this
bill.
I concur with you that forgoing action on this bill does
not in any way prejudice the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on
this bill or similar legislation in the future, and I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this legislation.
I will include our letters H.R. 2845 in the Congressional
Record during House Floor consideration of the bill. Again, I
appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and I
look forward to working with the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: I write concerning H.R. 1938, the
North American-Made Energy Security Act, which is expected to
be scheduled for floor consideration the week of July 25,
2011.
As you know, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure was listed as the Committee of primary
jurisdiction when H.R. 1938 was introduced on May 23, 2011. I
recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this
legislation before the House of Representatives in an
expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee will forgo
action on the bill.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure takes
this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing
consideration of H.R. 1938 at this time, we do not waive any
jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar
legislation. Further, I request your support in the
appointment of conferees from the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure during any House-Senate conference
convened on this legislation.
As you are aware, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure is the Committee of primary jurisdiction on
any legislation to reauthorize federal pipeline safety
programs. As such, our agreement to forego consideration of
H.R. 1938 is also conditional on our mutual understanding
that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will not take any
Full Committee action on legislation related to the
reauthorizing of the federal pipeline safety programs until
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has acted
on such legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding, and would ask that a copy of our exchange
of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional
Record during Floor consideration.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2011.
Hon. John L. Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Mica: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce recognizes that the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has primary
jurisdiction over H.R. 1938, and I appreciate your effort to
facilitate consideration of this bill.
I concur with you that foregoing action on H.R. 1938 does
not in any way prejudice the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure with respect to its jurisdictional
prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the
future, and I will support your effort to seek appointment of
an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving this or related legislation.
I also concur with you that the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure is the Committee of primary jurisdiction
on legislation to reauthorize the federal pipeline safety
programs and agree to not take action before September 20,
2011 at full committee on such legislation, allowing the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to take action
on such legislation.
I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation
and I will include our letters on H.R. 1938 in the
Congressional Record during House floor consideration of the
bill.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011.
Pipelines have a critical place in our Nation's infrastructure. The
national pipeline network of over 2.5 million miles efficiently
delivers gasoline, natural gas, oil, and other essential energy
products across the country each day. Pipelines play a vital role in
our daily lives. Cooking and cleaning, the daily commute, air travel,
and the heating of homes and businesses are all made possible by the
readily available fuels delivered through pipelines daily. However,
because of the volatile nature of the products they deliver, incidents
involving gas and hazardous liquid pipeline can and have had serious
consequences.
On June 10, 1999, a pipeline explosion caused the release of about
237,000 gallons of gasoline into a creek that flowed through Whatcom
Falls Park in Bellingham, Washington, in my district. The gasoline
ignited and tragically took the lives of two 10-year-old boys and an
18-year-old young man. Eight additional inhalation injuries occurred in
a single-family residence, and the city of Bellingham's water treatment
plant was severely damaged. The wildlife in Whatcom Creek was
completely destroyed.
This tragedy inspired the 2002 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. This
act increased fines for negligent pipeline operators, improved pipeline
testing timelines, provided protection for whistleblowers, and allowed
for the State oversight of pipeline safety. In 2006, Congress
reauthorized the 2002 law by passing the Pipeline Inspection,
Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act. These acts of Congress have
made pipeline safety laws stronger, the construction of new pipelines
better, and our existing infrastructure safer. While significant
progress has been made in improving the safety of our Nation's
pipelines, we must remain vigilant.
In July 2010, a 30-inch pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy Partners
ruptured and released 819,000 gallons of oil into the Talmadge Creek,
located near Marshall, Michigan. The oil flowed into the Kalamazoo
River, a tributary to Lake Michigan. Heavy rains caused the river to
overtop existing dams and carried oil 30 miles downstream on the
Kalamazoo River toward a Superfund site. Almost a year and a half
later, Enbridge is still cleaning up this spill along the riverbanks.
Just a few months after the Enbridge spill, in September 2010, an
intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline owned by Pacific Gas and
Electric Company ruptured in a residential area in San Bruno,
California. The released natural gas ignited, resulting in a fire that
destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70 others. As well, tragically, eight
people were killed, many were injured, and many more were evacuated.
The legislation that we are considering today addresses many concerns
that were raised as a result of these and other incidents. For example,
following the incident in Bellingham, Washington, National
Transportation Safety Board investigators found, among other things,
that Olympic Pipeline had no remote-operated shutoff valves on the
line, which could have helped prevent the release of hundreds of
thousands of gallons of gasoline. Following the Bellingham incident,
the Department of Transportation ordered the pipeline company to
install an automatic shutoff valve just downstream of the rupture
location so that the volume of product released would be limited in the
event of a future pipeline rupture in that area.

{time} 1720

H.R. 2845 addresses the issue of shutoff valves. It requires all gas
and liquid pipeline operators to install automatic, remote-controlled
shutoff valves on new and replaced pipelines.
The bill also doubles civil penalties for pipeline safety violations
from

[[Page H8336]]

$100,000 to $200,000 per violation and from $1 million to $2 million
for maximum penalties.
It requires the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to
evaluate and then issue regulations to expand integrity management
beyond high-consequence areas, to establish performance standards for
leak detection systems and require hazardous liquid pipeline operators
to install leak protection systems that meet such performance
standards.
It requires pipeline operators, in response to San Bruno, to report
to DOT anytime their facilities exceed maximum allowable operating
pressure and to conduct tests to confirm the material strength of
previously untested gas transmission pipelines in high-consequence
areas. And finally, it increases the level of pipeline safety
inspectors at DOT by 10 and increases the amount of technical
assistance grants that are awarded to local communities from $1 million
to $1.5 million annually.
H.R. 2845 is a step in the right direction when it comes to pipeline
safety. This bill is supported by industry, and it is supported by
pipeline safety and community groups like the Pipeline Safety Trust.
I want to thank the chairman and all the committee members for
working on this legislation. I want to thank Carl Weimer, who is the
executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust in Bellingham, which
formed after the 1999 pipeline explosion, as well for his continued
commitment to these issues.
I strongly urge Members to support this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment to H.R.
2845, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act
of 2011.
Enacting pipeline safety this year has been a personal priority of
mine and a top priority of the entire Energy and Commerce Committee on
a very strong bipartisan basis. This legislation is the product of
collaboration between our committee, Energy and Commerce members, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate
Committee on Commerce; and it reflects consensus across party lines.
With it, we make great strides to ensure our Nation's energy supplies
are transported in as safe a manner as possible. Over the last couple
of years, several major pipeline accidents have occurred across the
country that revealed specific gaps in pipeline safety laws and
regulations. It is our duty in Congress to look at these events and
determine what we can do to better protect the public and the
environment.
Among these accidents was a 20,000-barrel oil pipeline spill in a
tributary of the Kalamazoo River, just outside of my district. The
spill forced dozens of families out of their homes--in many cases,
permanently--and caused extensive environmental damage to a waterway
many residents enjoyed for fishing and canoeing.
Unfortunately, this is not the only major accident in recent memory.
The September 2010 gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California,
killed eight people and destroyed 37 homes. Another gas line explosion
last year in Allentown, Pennsylvania, killed five people as well. And
this summer, an oil pipeline buried underneath the iconic Yellowstone
River in Wyoming ruptured and sent over 1,000 barrels of crude oil
downstream.
These incidents highlighted, certainly, shortcomings in our Nation's
pipeline safety laws, and today we are here to correct that.
The legislation before us today offers historic improvements to the
manner in which the Federal Government regulates energy pipelines. It
accomplishes this by strengthening standards in several areas, while
maintaining the continued economical delivery of vital energy supplies.
For these reasons, this bill enjoys the support of a broad array of
stakeholders, from the Pipeline Safety Trust to the American Gas
Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the Gas
Processors Association, and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
The bill is several months in the making and could not have been
accomplished without the hard work and dedication of a bipartisan group
of Members. This is a topic many of us take very seriously, as it
affected us and our constituents on a personal level. And today we can
say party affiliation and politics have taken a back seat to
accomplishing the people's work, and for that, I must offer my
heartfelt thanks.
Congratulations to the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce
Committee who is on the floor tonight, John Dingell; the ranking member
of the committee who is, again, on the House floor, Henry Waxman; the
chairman of the Transportation Committee, John Mica; and the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials,
Bill Shuster.
I urge all Members to support this legislation.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, during the last year and a half, a series of
tragic failures have made it clear that we need stronger pipeline
safety laws. Pipeline failures have occurred all across the country.
From California and Montana to Michigan and Pennsylvania, we've seen
natural gas pipeline explosions and ruptured oil pipelines spilling oil
into rivers.
In July 2010, a crude oil pipeline ruptured near Marshall, Michigan.
Over 800,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Talmadge Creek and then
flowed into the Kalamazoo River. The river is still being cleaned up.
In September 2010, a natural gas pipeline ruptured and exploded in
San Bruno, California. Eight people died; many more were injured. The
gas-fed inferno spread from house to house, driven by the wind. Thirty-
eight homes were destroyed and 70 more were damaged. The explosion left
behind a suburban street with a massive crater and burned-out vehicles.
The vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board described
it as ``an amazing scene of destruction.''
This past summer, an ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured in Montana,
spilling crude oil into the Yellowstone River.
Unfortunately, those are just a few of the major accidents we have
seen during the past 18 months. This bill will update and strengthen
our pipeline safety laws in the aftermath of these tragedies.
In response to the Michigan spill, this bill requires pipeline
operators to notify the safety agency of spills more quickly and
establishes a process for leak detection standards to be issued for oil
pipelines.
In response to the San Bruno tragedy, this bill requires key natural
gas pipelines to have their maximum safe operating pressure confirmed
through records or testing. It also instructs the safety agency to
require the use of automatic or remote-controlled shutoff valves so
that it doesn't take an hour and a half to stop the flow of gas like it
did in San Bruno.
I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague from California,
Representative Jackie Speier, who fought for a strong response to San
Bruno, and this bill has been made a better bill by her contributions.
In light of the Yellowstone River spill, the bill requires the agency
to review its regulations governing the safety of pipelines buried
under rivers to ensure they are adequate. The bill includes a number of
additional improvements to strengthen our pipeline safety laws.
This is a good bipartisan bill that has the support of both industry
and safety advocates. The Energy and Commerce Committee and the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have worked hard to develop
a combined bill that would have broad support.
I would like to thank Chairmen Upton, Mica, and Shuster, as well as
Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rush, Mr. Rahall, and Ms. Brown, for their work on
this legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to just note in
the legislation, section 6 of H.R. 2845 includes a requirement that the
Secretary of Transportation provide a person, upon written request, a
copy of a pipeline company's response plan.
I think it's important to note and point out to my colleagues that
these

[[Page H8337]]

plans often contain security-sensitive information about pipelines'
operating characteristics. If this information fell into the wrong
hands, it could be a real threat to public safety. In recognition of
this threat, we've included a provision that directs the Secretary to
redact security-sensitive information.
It is my hope that the Secretary ensures that no security-sensitive
information is released to the public; and the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee will aggressively oversee the implementation
of this provision to ensure that it is being implemented according to
congressional intent.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and
chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

{time} 1730

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2845. This is a bipartisan
bill, somewhat a rarity, and the more welcome for that reason. It's
going to help instill public confidence in our Nation's pipeline safety
system by increasing safety standards without overly burdensome actions
towards industry.
The legislation shows that bipartisanship is possible in this
Congress, and that we can conduct the business of the American people
if we will but sit down and work together. I first want to thank
Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman and my friend, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, for their hard work. I also want to recognize and thank
Jeff Baran and Garrett Golding of the committee staff for their hard
work, as well as Greg Sundstrom of my personal staff, who worked with
great diligence and skill on this matter. Chairman Mica, Chairman
Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and Mr. Rush also deserve recognition
for their hard work as the two committees have worked harmoniously
together to forge an agreement on the final product we have before us
today.
The inclusive process used in this case is an excellent model of how
Congress should move forward on a host of other issues, and I hope that
the instructive character of it is accepted by my colleagues. Recent
accidents in California, Pennsylvania, Montana, and my home State of
Michigan each highlighted serious deficiencies in our pipeline safety
laws. H.R. 2845 incorporates the lessons learned in these incidents and
strengthens laws in the areas of concern.
Specifically, the bill expands the integrity management program to
improve inspections while phasing out our class location requirements,
thereby putting stronger safety standards in place while taking steps
to remove redundant regulations.
The leak detection, automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valve,
and maximum allowable operating pressure provisions are a step in the
right direction and will do much to improve safety. Pipeline safety is
not a partisan issue but, rather, is something that impacts all
Americans. We have an obligation to protect the American people and the
environment from harm while maintaining a system that transports our
energy resources efficiently.
It is my hope that the Senate will take up this legislation promptly
and that the Obama administration will implement these changes in a
meaningful way. We will all be watching to make sure that this happens.
Together, we have come up with a sound piece of legislation which has
the support of both industry and safety advocates, and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
I would also like to observe, when one of these things lets go, it's
quite an event. You will see something that looks a little bit like
hell with the fire and flame and explosion and blasts and dead people
and scorched automobiles, homes and the environment. I am delighted to
see that we are doing this because we are protecting us both from gas
and oil spills, and the evil consequences of that.
Mr. SHUSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Larsen from Washington State,
for recognizing me and sharing the time with me. I am here to express
my full support for this bill, H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011.
Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a bipartisan effort and a good-
faith compromise by Members from both sides of the aisle, from multiple
committees, and of course across both Chambers of Congress.
During negotiations on the final bill language, I was very fortunate
to have Administrator Cynthia Quarterman of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Agency accept my invitation to come out to my State
and to discuss pipeline safety with representatives from the Illinois
Commerce Commission, as well as with officials from Will County, which
accounts for a larger percentage of pipelines than any other county in
my home State.
Mr. Speaker, many of the same serious issues regarding pipeline
safety that were discussed in these meetings are addressed in this
piece of legislation. I am very pleased with the final product.
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank Members from both sides of
the aisle, chairman emeritus of the full committee and dean of the
House, John Dingell; Energy and Commerce Chairman Upton; and Ranking
Member Waxman, as well as Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman
Whitfield, for working with my office to include language that will
require a comprehensive report examining the levels of engagement and
participation of minority-owned, women-owned and disadvantaged business
enterprises and contractors involved in the construction and the
operations of pipelines in this country.
Additionally, this report will look at the methods for facilitating
this type of involvement in order to increase the participation of
minorities and women in the very lucrative pipeline industry. This
study will be a first step in a process to make sure that the builders
and contractors in charge of rebuilding America's aging and expanding
pipeline system will represent the variety of groups and businesses
that are here in our Nation, including those who are most desperate for
jobs and economic opportunity.
I'm pleased to support this legislation, and I urge all of my
colleagues to join with me in voting for it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership
in helping to guide this legislation and important measure through
Congress. I want to take this opportunity to thank folks on both sides
of the aisle: Mr. Upton, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee;
I particularly want to thank Ms. Brown, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Waxman; and of
course others who have helped on the Senate side.
This legislation is being done really the way Congress is intended to
work, to try to reach a bicameral, bipartisan consensus. We don't have
to go to conference. We have worked out some of the issues, and this is
not an easy piece of legislation to pass. This is a very important
piece of legislation for the American people as far as our energy
resources and transporting them safely across the land, as far as an
industry that is so important to creating jobs and opportunity and
keeping the cost of energy down for men and women, consumers and people
hit by difficult times right now, looking for reasonable energy costs
and keeping the U.S. competitive and providing reasonably costed energy
and transporting it safely.
This is probably one of the four main jobs bills, too, that we will
pass from our committee. We have today the pipeline safety legislation.
Our committee has also passed the Coast Guard authorization, and we are
hoping we can reach a consensus on that. We have finished and are
preconferencing with the Senate the FAA bill which is 4\1/2\ years
overdue. We inherited that 4 years late, and we are basically finished.
There are a few items that must be resolved by leadership. Then,
finally, time did not allow us to finish a major transportation bill,
sometimes referred to as the highway bill, but this will be more than a
highway bill. We plan to have that up as soon as we return.

[[Page H8338]]

{time} 1740

So those are our four major pieces of legislation, and this
represents, again, a concerted effort by a number of key players in
dual committees and in both the House and the Senate.
What's important about this legislation is it does make some changes,
and you have heard from Members who have had horrendous pipeline
incidents in their communities and their States, people have lost their
lives, there's been extreme property damage, and we have also impacted
in a negative fashion the environment.
And what we do here in this legislation are some simple things.
First, we enhance the inspections. We set standards of better
inspections for pipelines. We hold pipeline operators accountable, and
that's important. People must be responsible for their actions, and we
double the fines if there is negligence. There will be a penalty to pay
because the damage has been incurred. And, again, we have seen some of
the bad results. What we hope for is good results from this, again,
that we can keep energy flowing and provide it for consumers.
That's good news for consumers, that's good news for the industry at
a time when we should be hiring and employing people in this important
energy activity, and it's good news for, again, safe transport and safe
jobs in an important industry in our country.
So I'm pleased that we've come together. We have, I think, achieved
and set an example for the Congress when Congress's reputation is, oh,
very low, and that's giving us high marks. And when people express
their disappointment in the inability of Congress to act, we are
acting. Because this is being resolved without conflict and without,
again, huge disruption in the congressional process, it probably won't
get much attention. But it is in fact, and it is indeed a very
important seep forward.
I'm grateful for all of those who have come together and worked and
made this an example of how Congress can and should work for the
benefit of the American people.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from Washington State for yielding
me time.
Fifteen months ago, in my district, a gas pipeline exploded and
killed eight of my constituents. Thirty-eight homes were destroyed,
many more were severely damaged, and many were victims that sat in burn
centers for months; and I visited them. It was a horrific scene. It
destroyed that community in so many respects; and yet like a phoenix,
it has risen above it. This bill is really very personal to me because
I lived with those experiences with all of those constituents.
There are a couple of things that must be said today. The chairwoman
of the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, said in their
final report: Our investigation revealed that for years, the operator
exploited weaknesses in a lax system of oversight. We also identified
regulators that placed a blind trust in the companies that they were
charged with overseeing to the detriment of public safety.
As a result of their report, they made 30 safety recommendations,
many of them identified as urgent, to address issues in recordkeeping,
information sharing, and pipeline testing. The NTSB report said it
highlighted the fact that the problem has been under-regulation, not
over-regulation, of the pipeline industry. For too long the pipeline
operators have essentially written the rules for their industry.
Well, this bill takes a very important step forward in improving
pipeline safety regulation , and I endorse it; but there is more that
must be done. And ironically, now in California, because of this
horrific accident, the residents in California will have better
safeguards than any other State in this country because of actions
taken by the State legislature and the California Public Utilities
Commission that will require, moving forward, that automatic and remote
shutoff valves be placed in high-consequence areas and in seismic
areas, not just on new pipeline and not just on new pipeline that they
find economically feasible to place these automatic and remote shutoff
valves. This is a key component that was not included in the
legislation.
And I must tell you, when you saw that ball of fire raging for 90
minutes, an hour and a half, before they were able to turn off the gas,
that is something that has to be addressed on a national basis. It's
been addressed now in California; and I urge us, as we move forward, to
address it on a national level, as well.
The NTSB also recommended requiring all pipelines be configured to
allow for inline inspection tools called ``smart pigs.'' I didn't know
what a smart pig was before this happened, but I do now. They are also
recommending requiring that older pipeline, in particular, be subject
to smart pigging. This is critical to make sure that they have not
endured corrosion, that they have not been spiked and the like.
So moving forward I hope that we will take the steps necessary not
just to support this measure and to have it signed into law but to make
it clear that our work is still not done.
Mr. SHUSTER. I have no further speakers; so I will continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in closing, just let me say a
few words.
First off, I want to be sure I thank Ms. Brown of Florida, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, as well as Mr. Rahall, the ranking
member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as
well as my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle on the
committee, and, of course, on the Energy and Commerce Committee for the
work that we all did to make this bill happen.
This is the third version of the pipeline safety bill that I
personally have worked on going back to 2001. Each time Congress has
reauthorized the pipeline safety bill, we have done so by learning
lessons from the previous 4 years, incorporating those lessons into the
legislation and taking forward steps to make the use of pipelines and
the transportation of liquid fuel and gas safer.
The third thing I just want to point out is that each year--2002,
2006 and 2011--each year of the passage of the pipeline safety bill,
the bills have been bipartisan and garnered much support both in the
House and in the Senate. We are likely to see that in the House, and I
certainly urge the Senate to take this bill up this week and pass it
with bipartisan support, as well.
Finally, let me just say to this body that I would urge this body to
support this bill and to pass H.R. 2845. I want to thank Mr. Shuster
for his cooperation in this effort as well.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the words
of the gentleman from Washington. He is really one of the experts in
Congress when it comes to pipeline safety, and it has been my pleasure
to work with him on this bill.
As I said earlier, I'm very, very proud of the work that's gone into
this bill on both sides of the aisle. This truly is a bipartisan
agreement and a bicameral agreement, and I think we can all be proud of
the product we've produced and look forward to it being passed into
law, because pipelines are the safest way to move the gas and the
hazardous products that this Nation needs to fuel the economy. And this
important legislation does improve safety. It enhances the reliability
and provides the regulatory certainty so that the owners and operators
of pipelines will make the investments in their systems that will
create jobs across America.
So I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2845; and with that, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2845, the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011.
This legislation, which enjoys broad bipartisan support in both
Chambers of Congress, seeks to improve the safety of our nation's
pipeline infrastructure, an issue that is important to all Americans.
I want to call attention to the pipeline safety research and
development portions of this bill--specifically a small but important
interagency program that I worked on in my capacity as longstanding
Member of and current Chairman of the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee.
Focused R&D aimed at accident prevention and protecting the integrity
of our pipeline infrastructure is critical to ensuring that our
nation's energy supplies are transported safely.

[[Page H8339]]

As an original co-sponsor of the 2002 pipeline safety legislation, I
led efforts to establish the existing R&D program. This program has
been productive and efficient in carrying out pipeline safety R&D. In
particular, the public-private partnership model that the Department of
Transportation uses to administer the program has served to leverage
both Federal agency and private sector resources and expertise.
I want to thank my colleagues for working with me on this legislation
to make modest--but important--changes to the current program.
In particular, I want to thank Chairman Mica for working with me to
ensure that the program maintains its historical public-private cost-
sharing structure, and recognizes the important contributions of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology in pipeline safety
research, development, and standards.
With respect to cost-sharing, I was particularly concerned with a
recent decision by the Secretary of Transportation that sought to
eliminate non-Federal sources of funding toward pipeline safety R&D.
This decision threatened to undermine the program's ability to
leverage taxpayer dollars to advance new pipeline safety technologies,
and in doing so would have also prevented the government from taking
advantage of the highly specialized pipeline expertise that is found
only in industry.
I am pleased that H.R. 2845 requires a thirty percent, program-wide,
cost share from non-Federal sources, which will help ensure that this
program continues to achieve its purpose without placing an unnecessary
burden on the taxpayer.
I thank my colleagues again for their efforts and urge passage of
this valuable legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2845, the
``Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of
2011''.
This legislation will make significant improvements to pipeline
safety, and is a prime example of how good public policy is formed when
all sides come together and work toward producing a strong package from
day one.
Pipelines have a critical place in our nation's infrastructure; more
than 2.5 million miles of pipelines deliver energy to homes and
businesses across America. From the gasoline that fills the cars we
drive to the diesel that fuels the trucks that deliver food to local
grocery stores to the natural gas that heats our homes, pipelines make
it possible.
Unfortunately, due to the volatile nature of the products that
pipelines deliver, incidents involving gas and hazardous liquid
pipelines can and have had disastrous consequences.
On July 26, 2010, a 30-inch pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy
Partners LLP ruptured and released more than one million gallons of oil
into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River just one mile south of
Marshall, Michigan. The Kalamazoo River flows into Lake Michigan. The
spill devastated the local environment and wildlife, uprooted
homeowners that live near the creek and river, and exposed local
communities to noxious and toxic substances before Enbridge even raised
alarm. Nearly a year and one-half later, Enbridge is still excavating
oil-contaminated soil and weathered oil from the river banks; submerged
oil recovery work has been suspended for the winter but will resume in
2012.
A little over a month after the Enbridge spill, on September 9, 2010,
an intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline owned by the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, ruptured in a residential area in San Bruno,
California. The released natural gas ignited, resulting in a fire that
destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70 others. Eight people were killed,
many were injured, and many more were evacuated from the area.
The bill before us today addresses many of the recommendations that
were issued by the National Transportation Safety Board in accident
reports that followed these and other pipeline incidents. For example,
the bill holds pipeline operators accountable to a maximum of one hour
to report a release of hazardous liquid or gas resulting in an
incident. As the natural gas disaster in San Bruno, California
underscores--every minute that passes following a release of hazardous
liquid or gas from a pipeline is one less minute that responders have
to protect the community and the surrounding environment. In fact, CNN
was reporting the incident six hours before PG&E reported it to the
National Response Center and Federal investigators.
Additionally, the bill raises civil penalties for each pipeline
safety violation from $100,000 to $200,000 and the maximum civil
penalty from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. The maximum penalties for
violations of pipeline safety regulations under current law have not
been increased in almost a decade. Adequate levels of penalties are
necessary to deter unsafe operating practices by the pipeline industry,
particularly in serious cases involving injuries, fatalities, and
significant environmental damage. The bill further clarifies that civil
penalties are applicable to obstruction of an investigation.
The bill also:
Requires pipeline operators to install automatic shut-off valves on
all new and replaced pipeline so that the volume of product released as
a result of a rupture would be limited;
Requires the Secretary of Transportation to evaluate and then issue
regulations to expand integrity management beyond high-consequence
areas; establish performance standards for leak detection systems; and
require hazardous liquid pipeline operators to install leak detection
systems that meet those performance standards;
Requires pipeline operators, in response to the San Bruno incident,
to report to the Department of Transportation any time their facilities
exceed maximum allowable operating pressure, and to conduct tests to
confirm the material strength of previously untested gas transmission
pipelines in high-consequence areas;
Prevents States that receive one-call grants from exempting
municipalities, State agencies, or their contractors from one-call
(damage prevention) notification requirements;
Requires the Secretary to ensure offshore hazardous liquid gathering
lines and hazardous liquid gathering lines located within the inlets of
the Gulf of Mexico are subject to the same safety standards and
regulations as other hazardous liquid gathering lines;
Beginning one year after the date of enactment, prohibits the
Secretary from issuing guidance or a regulation that incorporates by
reference any documents or portions thereof unless those documents or
portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge, on
an Internet Web site;
Requires the Department of Transportation, DOT, to develop and
implement a protocol for consulting with Indian tribes to provide
technical assistance for the regulation of pipelines; and
Increases the level of pipeline safety inspectors at DOT.
In sum, H.R. 2845 is a step in the right direction when it comes to
pipeline safety, and I urge its adoption.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong
support for H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and
Job Creation Act of 2011.
I want to thank Chairmen Mica and Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall
for their bipartisan effort in bringing a good bill to the Floor today
that will truly improve the safety of our nation's pipeline systems and
the communities they serve.
Bipartisan bills are not easy to come by these days in Washington,
and I'm proud to say that we worked with both sides on the Energy &
Commerce Committee and our counterparts in the Senate to develop a
compromise bill. This legislation accomplishes our goal of improving
safety and education without limiting the industry's ability to serve
its customers.
Our Subcommittee held numerous hearings over the last two Congresses
with all the stakeholders in the pipeline industry to see what we could
be doing better to detect and prevent spills. Our strong oversight of
PHMSA and the pipeline industry helped develop the bill we have on the
floor today.
This legislation makes numerous positive changes to the regulation of
the pipeline industry and addresses many of the problems we've
discovered with recent devastating spills.
The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of
2011 makes major improvements to pipeline safety by increasing
penalties for safety violations, mandating new shut-off valve
installation for all new and repaired pipes, limiting exemptions to
call before you dig requirements, updating the national pipeline
mapping system, evaluating current integrity management plans,
providing important pipeline information to the public free of charge,
training state and local government personnel, adding ten PHMSA
inspectors, and studying pipeline permitting, transporting non-
hazardous liquids, and the integrity of cast iron gas pipelines.
As we continue to debate the construction of the Keystone XL
Pipeline, implementation of this legislation will help ensure that the
construction and operation of this new pipeline will be held to the
highest safety standards.
This legislation is government at its best. It was developed in a
bipartisan manner through comprehensive committee hearings and
oversight, and close collaboration with the industry and other
stakeholders, including states and advocacy groups.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2845, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H8340]]

____________________