[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31364-31367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14999]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-117; Amdt. 195-57]
RIN 2137-AC87


Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Serving Plants and 
Terminals

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule excludes from RSPA's safety regulations for 
hazardous liquid 1 pipelines (1) low-stress pipelines 
2 regulated for safety by the U.S. Coast Guard; and (2) low-
stress pipelines less than 1 mile long that serve certain plants and 
transportation terminals without crossing an offshore area or a 
waterway currently used for commercial navigation. RSPA previously 
stayed enforcement of the regulations against these pipelines to 
mitigate compliance difficulties that did not appear warranted by risk. 
The rule change conforms the regulations with this enforcement policy.

    \1\ ``Hazardous liquid'' means petroleum, petroleum products, or 
anhydrous ammonia.
    \2\ ``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 (SMYS) of the line 
pipe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: This direct final rule is effective October 7, 1997. If RSPA 
does not receive any adverse comment or notice

[[Page 31365]]

of intent to file an adverse comment by August 8, 1997 the rule will 
become effective on the date specified. RSPA will issue a subsequent 
notice in the Federal Register by September 8, 1997 after the close of 
the comment period to confirm that fact and reiterate the effective 
date. If an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse 
comment is received, RSPA will issue a timely notice in the Federal 
Register to confirm that fact and RSPA would withdraw the direct final 
rule in whole or in part. RSPA may then incorporate the adverse comment 
into a subsequent direct final rule or may publish a notice of proposed 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rulemaking.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, Room 8421, 
Research and Special Programs Administration, U. S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Identify 
the docket and notice number stated in the heading of this notice. All 
comments and docketed material will be available for inspection and 
copying in Room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. each business day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow, (202)366-4559, regarding 
the subject matter of this notice. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-
5046, for copies of this notice or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    When RSPA's safety regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines (49 
CFR part 195) were first published, the regulations did not apply to 
low-stress pipelines (34 FR 15473, Oct. 4, 1969). Because of their 
generally low operating pressures, low-stress hazardous liquid 
pipelines were thought to pose little risk to public safety.
    In recent years, however, during a time of increased environmental 
awareness, critical accidents involving low-stress pipelines led 
Congress to restrict DOT's discretion to except these lines from 
regulation. The most prominent accident was the January 1990 spill of 
approximately 500,000 gallons of heating oil from an underwater Exxon 
pipeline into the Arthur Kill, a navigable waterway that separates 
Staten Island from New Jersey. Three years earlier, a 5,000-gallon 
spill of jet fuel on the Kinley pipeline in Iowa threatened the 
Missouri River. Both pipelines would have been covered by part 195 had 
there not been the low-stress exception. So, in an amendment to the 
pipeline safety laws, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation 
not to provide an exception from regulation for a hazardous liquid 
pipeline facility only because the facility operates at low internal 
stress (49 U.S.C. 60102(k)).
    In response to this change in the law, RSPA extended the part 195 
regulations to cover certain low-stress pipelines of higher risk 
(Docket No. PS-117; 59 FR 35465, July 12, 1994). Except for onshore 
rural gathering lines and gravity-powered lines, the following 
categories of low-stress pipelines were brought under the regulations: 
Pipelines that transport highly volatile liquids, pipelines located 
onshore and outside rural areas, pipelines located offshore, and 
pipelines located in waterways that are currently used for commercial 
navigation (Sec. 195.1(b)(3)). Because the rulemaking record showed 
that many low-stress pipelines probably were not operated and 
maintained consistent with part 195 requirements, operators were 
allowed to delay compliance of their existing lines until July 12, 1996 
(Sec. 195.1(c)).

II. Interfacility Transfer Lines

A. Description

    The largest proportion of low-stress pipelines brought under part 
195 consisted of interfacility transfer lines (about two-thirds of the 
pipelines and one-third of the overall mileage). The remainder included 
trunk lines and certain gathering lines.
    Interfacility transfer lines move hazardous liquids locally between 
facilities such as truck, rail, and vessel transportation terminals, 
manufacturing plants, petrochemical plants, and oil refineries, or 
between these facilities and associated storage or long-distance 
pipeline transportation.3 The lines usually are short, 
averaging about a mile in length. Typically they are operated in 
association with other transfer piping on the grounds of the plants and 
terminals they serve. However, some interfacility transfer lines that 
deliver hazardous liquids to plants or terminals from long-distance 
pipelines may be operated by the long-distance pipeline operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The interfacility transfer lines did not include piping that 
connect high-stress pipelines with surge tanks located at plants and 
terminals. This piping was already subject to the part 195 
regulations as part of the pipeline systems for which the tanks 
relieve surges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Related Federal Regulations

    Segments of interfacility transfer lines located on the grounds of 
industrial plants and transportation terminals are subject to the 
Process Safety Management regulations of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.119). These regulations, 
which involve hazard analysis and control, operating and maintenance 
procedures, and personnel training, are intended to reduce the risk of 
fires and explosions caused by the escape of hazardous chemicals from 
facility processes.
    Although on-grounds segments of interfacility transfer lines 
generally are excepted from part 195 (Sec. 195.1(b) (6) and 
(7)),4 the on-grounds segment and regulated off-grounds 
segment of a line function together as a unit. Thus, OSHA's Process 
Safety Management regulations, though applicable only to on-grounds 
segments, affect the operation of off-grounds segments. And, similarly, 
compliance with part 195 for off-grounds segments affects operation of 
the unregulated on-grounds segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Segments of interfacility transfer lines on plant or 
terminal grounds are subject to part 195 if the segment connects a 
regulated pipeline (including off-grounds segments of interfacility 
transfer lines) to a surge tank or other device necessary to control 
the operating pressure of the regulated pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, transfer lines between vessels and marine 
transportation-related facilities are subject to safety regulations of 
the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR parts 154 and 156). The Coast Guard 
applies these regulations to transfers of hazardous liquid from the 
dock loading arm or manifold up to the first valve after the line 
enters the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) 
containment or secondary containment if the facilities are not 
protected by SPCC plans.

C. Compliance Difficulties and Risk

    Information we received in response to Notice 1 of Docket PS-117 
(55 FR 45822, Oct. 31, 1990) showed that bringing interfacility 
transfer lines into full compliance with part 195 would be difficult 
for many operators. The primary difficulty is that their lines are not 
installed and operated on the basis of Part 195 standards. For example, 
considering the short length and low operating stress of the lines, 
additional pipe wall thickness is often used instead of cathodic 
protection to resist expected corrosion. But, regardless of this 
feature, under part 195, cathodic protection systems would have to be 
developed and installed as required. Other part 195 requirements that 
may not bring commensurate benefits for short, low-stress transfer 
lines involve modification of operations and maintenance manuals, 
installation of pressure control equipment, and establishment of 
programs to carry out drug and alcohol rules under 49 CFR part 199. 
Also, operating personnel would have to be trained to carry out part 
195 requirements.

[[Page 31366]]

    After publication of the Final Rule in Docket PS-117, we learned 
about another significant compliance difficulty. Transfer line 
operators and their representatives said that coping with the separate 
federal regulatory regimes of RSPA, OSHA, and the Coast Guard over 
transfer lines was a strain on resources. As explained above, OSHA's 
Process Safety Management regulations and RSPA's Part 195 standards 
have an overlapping effect on operation of interfacility transfer 
lines. This overlap results in analogous administrative costs for 
records, procedures, and manuals. Worse yet it creates opportunities 
for mistakes when operating personnel have to meet different 
requirements with similar objectives.
    For transfers between vessels and marine transportation-related 
facilities, the Coast Guard safety regulations compound the RSPA-OSHA 
overlap problem. Moreover, application of part 195 to these marine 
terminal transfer lines duplicates agency efforts within DOT. It also 
leaves the industry uncertain which DOT safety standards apply to 
particular facilities. So the upshot of these separate regulatory 
regimes of RSPA, OSHA, and the Coast Guard is not only the added costs 
of meeting separate requirements directed at similar safety objectives, 
but also possible confusion of operating personnel.
    The low-stress pipeline regulations also present RSPA and its 
cooperating State agencies with related compliance difficulties. 
Carrying out adequate compliance inspections on interfacility transfer 
lines would require a significant increase in resources. We estimate 
that about 11,000 miles of low-stress pipelines are now under part 195, 
with over a third of the mileage composed of short interfacility 
transfer lines. Just the job of finding and educating the many 
operators of these short lines would likely be a major, protracted 
effort.
    We weighed these industry and government compliance difficulties 
against the need for risk reduction on low-stress interfacility 
transfer lines. Our conclusion: The potential benefits of complying 
with part 195 do not justify the compliance difficulties if the line is 
short and does not cross an offshore area or a commercially navigable 
waterway, or if the line is regulated by the Coast Guard. There were 
several reasons for this decision. First, RSPA's pipeline safety data 
do not show that short interfacility transfer lines have been a source 
of significant safety problems. Another reason was that the low 
operating hoop stress of interfacility transfer lines is itself a 
safeguard against several accident causes. And, from the consequence 
perspective, a short length means the potential spill volume would be 
limited should an accident occur. Also, public exposure is typically 
limited in the industrial areas where most low-stress transfer lines 
are located. For marine transfer lines, the risk is reduced even 
further by the Coast Guard regulations and inspection force. At the 
same time, except for Coast Guard regulated lines, the potential of 
transfer lines located offshore or in commercially navigable waterways 
to cause environmental harm tipped the scale toward continued 
compliance with part 195.

D. Stay of Enforcement

    In view of the above considerations, we became concerned that the 
continued application of part 195 to Coast Guard regulated lines and 
other short interfacility transfer lines not crossing an offshore area 
or a navigable waterway was not in the public interest. Consequently, 
we announced a stay of enforcement of part 195 against these lines (61 
FR 24245; May 14, 1996). The stay applies to low-stress pipelines that 
are regulated by the Coast Guard or that extend less than 1 mile 
outside plant or terminal grounds without crossing an offshore area or 
any waterway currently used for commercial navigation. The stay will 
remain in effect until modified or until the part 195 regulations are 
finally revised as a result of the present action.
    Since announcement of the stay, we have not received any request to 
lift it. More important, last year we explained this new enforcement 
policy at two public meetings of the Technical Hazardous Liquid 
Pipeline Safety Advisory Committee, a statutory panel that reviews 
RSPA's pipeline safety program. We also explained our plan to revise 
the part 195 regulations to match the new policy. Neither the Committee 
members nor the public attendees raised any objection to the 
enforcement policy or planned rule change. Further, State agencies who 
cooperate with RSPA in enforcing safety standards over interfacility 
transfer lines have not objected to the stay.

E. The Rule Change

    The present rulemaking action removes from the application of part 
195 those low-stress interfacility transfer lines that are covered by 
the stay of enforcement. This rule change is achieved by revising 
Sec. 195.1(b)(3) as set forth below. Besides the low-stress pipelines 
covered by the stay, revised Sec. 195.1(b)(3) continues to exclude from 
part 195 the low-stress pipelines that were already excluded before the 
present action.
    To make this rule change, rather than first publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking as contemplated in the stay of enforcement, we are 
using the direct final rule procedure under 49 CFR 190.339. This new 
rulemaking procedure was not yet in effect when the stay was announced. 
Although this procedure does not provide for prior public notice and 
opportunity for comment, interested persons may participate as 
explained above under the ``Effective date'' heading. A direct final 
rule is appropriate in this case because, based on the history of the 
stay of enforcement, we believe the rule change is not controversial, 
is in the public interest, and is not likely to draw adverse comment.

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this 
action to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Therefore, OMB 
has not reviewed this final rule document. DOT does not consider this 
action significant under its regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 
11034; February 26, 1979).
    RSPA prepared a study of the costs and benefits of the Final Rule 
that extended part 195 to cover certain low-stress pipelines (Final 
Regulatory Evaluation, Docket No. PS-117). That study, which 
encompassed short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility transfer 
lines, showed that the Final Rule would result in net benefits to 
society, with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.5.
    The Final Regulatory Evaluation determined costs and benefits of 
the Final Rule on a mileage basis. But while costs were evenly 
distributed, most of the expected benefits were projected from accident 
data that did not involve short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility 
transfer lines. So, since the present action affects only these lines, 
it is reasonable to believe the action will reduce more costs than 
benefits. Thus, the present action should enhance the net benefits of 
the Final Rule. Because of this likely economic effect, a further 
regulatory evaluation of the Final Rule in Docket No. PS-117 or of the 
present action is not warranted.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Low stress interfacility transfer lines covered by the present 
action are associated primarily with the operation

[[Page 31367]]

of refineries, petrochemical and other industrial plants, and materials 
transportation terminals. In general, these facilities are not operated 
by small entities. Nonetheless, even if small entities operate low-
stress interfacility transfer lines, their costs will be lower because 
this action reduces compliance burdens. Therefore, based on the facts 
available about the anticipated impact of this rulemaking action, I 
certify, pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive 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.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action reduces the pipeline mileage and number of operators 
subject to part 195. Consequently, it reduces the information 
collection burden of part 195 that is subject to review by OMB under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information 
collection requirements of part 195 through May 31, 1999 (OMB No. 2137-
0047).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

    Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends 49 CFR part 195 as 
follows:

PART 195--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118; 
and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. In Sec. 195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is 
republished, and paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) This part does not apply to--
* * * * *
    (3) Transportation through the following low-stress pipelines:
    (i) An onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that--
    (A) Does not transport HVL;
    (B) Is located in a rural area; and
    (C) Is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial 
navigation;
    (ii) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast 
Guard; and
    (iii) A pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck, 
rail, or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1 
mile long (measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross an 
offshore area or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation;
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, D.C., on June 4, 1997.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-14999 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P