[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