[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 63 (Friday, April 2, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15926-15936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. RSPA-97-2095; Amendment 195-66]
[RIN 2137-AC 11]


Pipeline Safety: Adoption of Consensus Standards for Breakout 
Tanks

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

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates by reference consensus standards 
for aboveground steel storage tanks into the hazardous liquid pipeline 
safety regulations. These standards apply to the design, construction, 
and testing of new tanks, and the repairs, alterations and replacement 
of existing tanks. All new and existing breakout tanks are also subject 
to the operating and maintenance requirements specified in this rule. 
The incorporation by reference of these thirteen standards will 
significantly improve the minimum level of safety applicable to the 
transportation and storage of petroleum and petroleum products at 
breakout tanks throughout the United States.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule takes effect May 3, 1999. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register May 3, 1999.
    Compliance date: Except under Sec. 195.432, compliance with 
consensus

[[Page 15927]]

standards that are incorporated by reference is not required until 
October 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni, Office of Pipeline Safety 
(OPS), telephone: (202) 366-4571, FAX: (202) 366-4566, e-mail: 
[email protected], regarding the subject matter of this rule; or 
the Docket Facility, telephone (202) 366-9329, regarding copies of this 
final rule or other material in the docket.
    Comments may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov. 
General information about the RSPA/Office of Pipeline Safety programs 
can be obtained by accessing OPS's Internet home page at http://
ops.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The failure of a storage tank not associated with pipeline 
transportation provided much of the incentive to improve consensus 
standards for aboveground steel storage tanks. On January 2, 1988, at a 
barge terminal in Floreffe, Pennsylvania, a newly recommissioned 
storage tank suddenly collapsed and released 3.9 million gallons of 
diesel oil. Although the earthen dike contained most of the diesel oil, 
an estimated 750,000 gallons were spilled into the Monongahela River 
and eventually flowed into the Ohio River.
    The publicity and costly consequences of this failure caused 
widespread concern about the safety of all aboveground storage tanks. 
Responding to the aftermath of this event, petroleum industry engineers 
and the American Petroleum Institute considerably updated existing 
standards and developed several new standards.
    In the 10-year period from 1987-1996, operators of breakout tanks 
reported 152 accidents to RSPA. These accidents caused no deaths; three 
injuries to pipeline personnel; $12,422,894 of property damage; and 
153,972 spilled barrels. The causes were reported as: 25 leaks in the 
tank floor; 30 incorrect operations; 8 outside forces; and 26 
malfunctions of control or relief equipment. The remaining 63 were 
related to problems with floating roof water drain lines, lightning, 
and miscellaneous other causes.
    The pipeline safety regulations have not been revised to reflect 
the updating and development of new consensus standards for aboveground 
steel storage tanks. Instead, they remain very limited in scope and too 
general to address many safety-related aspects.
    Consequently, RSPA recognizes the need to update the safety 
regulations for breakout tanks. The most appropriate means of updating 
is the incorporation by reference into Part 195 of selected consensus 
standards. They are widely understood and have been extensively 
implemented by the operators of breakout tanks.
    RSPA provided operators of breakout tanks, the petroleum industry 
and the general public the opportunity to provide early input on RSPA's 
intent to incorporate consensus standards for storage tanks through 
public meetings.
    RSPA contracted with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to 
obtain professional assistance in the selection of consensus standards 
to be incorporated into the breakout tank regulations. TTI is 
associated with Texas A&M University at College station, Texas.
    All consensus standards are being adopted on a prospective basis, 
meaning design, construction and testing requirements apply to new tank 
construction and future repairs, alterations or replacements of 
existing tanks. Operating and maintenance requirements apply to future 
operating and maintenance activities. The deadlines for compliance with 
the new requirements are specified in the appropriate sections of this 
rule.
    For additional background information regarding this rule please 
refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [63 FR 27903; May 
21,1998].

Proposed Rule

    RSPA published an NPRM (63 FR 27903; May 21, 1998), proposing to 
incorporate 12 consensus standards for aboveground breakout storage 
tanks into 49 CFR Part 195. In addition, a 13th consensus standard, API 
510, has been added for inspection of high pressure vessels built to 
API standard 2510. The NPRM requested interested persons to submit 
comments by July 20, 1998. It was also stated that late filed comments 
would be considered as far as practicable. We received comments from 
nine sources including American Petroleum Institute (API) and U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to 7/20/98. After which, 
API and EPA filed second set of comments on 10/19/98 and 12/3/98 
respectively.

Final Rule

    This final rule incorporates consensus standards for aboveground 
breakout storage tanks into 49 CFR Part 195. Currently Sec. 195.3 lists 
18 publications that have been incorporated by reference into Part 195. 
This rule now incorporates all or parts of an additional six API 
standards (510, 620, 650, 653, 2000 and 2510), one API Specification 
(12F), four API Recommended Practices (651, 652, 2003 and 2350), one 
API Publication (2026), and NFPA 30.

Subpart A--General.

    Revised Sec. 195.1(c) explains the applicability of Part 195 to 
breakout tanks. It further explains that anhydrous ammonia breakout 
tanks need not comply with certain requirements in Part 195.
    Listed below are 13 standards incorporated by reference wholly or 
partially. For further information about these documents please refer 
to the NPRM [63 FR 27903; May 21, 1998] or the individual standards.
    1. API SPECIFICATION 12F--Specification for Shop Welded Tanks for 
Storage of Production Liquids, Eleventh Edition, November 1, 1994.
    2. API 510--Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance 
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration, Eighth Edition, June 1997.
    API 510 has been added for purposes of inspection of high pressure 
breakout tanks built to API standard 2510.
    3. API STANDARD 620--Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-
Pressure Storage Tanks, Ninth Edition, February 1996 (Including Addenda 
1 and 2).
    4. API STANDARD 650--Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, Ninth 
Edition, July 1993 (Including Addenda 1 through 4).
    5. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 651--Cathodic Protection of Aboveground 
Petroleum Storage Tanks, Second Edition, Dec. 1997.
    6. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 652--Lining of Aboveground Petroleum 
Storage Tank Bottoms, Second Edition, December 1997.
    7. API STANDARD 653--Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and 
Reconstruction, Second Edition, December 1995 (Including Addenda 1 and 
2).
    8. API STANDARD 2000--Venting Atmospheric and Low-Pressure Storage 
Tanks, Fourth Edition, September 1992.
    9. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2003--Protection Against Ignitions 
Arising Out of Static, Lightning, and Stray Currents, Sixth Edition, 
September 1998.
    10. API PUBLICATION 2026--Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating 
Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service, Second Edition, April 
1998.
    11. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2350--Overfill Protection for Storage 
Tanks In Petroleum Facilities, Second Edition, Jan. 1996.
    12. API STANDARD 2510--Design and Construction of LPG 
Installations, Seventh Edition, May 1995.

[[Page 15928]]

    13. NFPA 30--Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 1996 Edition.

Subpart C--Design Requirements

    The revised Sec. 195.132 now includes requirements for critical 
engineering subjects, such as materials, design, fabrication, erection, 
methods of inspecting joints, welding procedure and welder 
qualifications, and marking. It also contains other important topics 
including foundations, external floating roofs, seismic design, 
aluminum dome roofs, internal floating roofs, inspection and testing, 
and requirements for operating at elevated temperatures. These topics 
are typical of the engineering subjects covered by incorporating by 
reference the following standards:
    (1) API Specification 12F for shop-fabricated tanks with vapor 
space pressure that are approximately atmospheric with capacity of 90 
to 750 barrels.
    (2) API Standard 650 for atmospheric pressure tanks with pressures 
not greater than 2.5 psig.
    (3) API Standard 620 for low pressure tanks with vapor space 
pressures not greater than 15 psig.
    (4) API Standard 2510 for LPG tanks with capacity of 2000 gallons 
or more and pressures greater than 15 psig.

Subpart D--Construction

    A new Sec. 195.205 on Repair, alteration and reconstruction of 
breakout tanks that have been in service requires that tanks built to 
API 650 and API 12C are to be modified in accordance with API Standard 
653. Also, tanks built to API 620 may be modified by the design, 
welding examination and testing provisions of API standard 653 in 
proper conformance with the stresses, joint efficiencies, material and 
other provisions in API standard 620. For tanks built to API 2510 
modifications are to be performed in accordance with the API 510.
    In Sec. 195.242 requirements for cathodic protection have been 
amended for the aboveground tanks by referencing API Recommended 
Practices 651 for the bottoms of the tanks and API Recommended 
Practices 652 for the internal lining of the tank bottom.
    In Sec. 195.264, requirements for impoundment, protection against 
entry, normal/emergency venting and pressure/vacuum relief for the 
above ground breakout tanks have been revised. In addition some 
requirements of NFPA 30 have been added for impoundment by diking.

Subpart E--Pressure Testing

    A new Sec. 195.307 requires pressure testing of breakout tanks 
newly placed in service or returned to service after 18 months. Testing 
requirements reference specified tank standards.

Subpart F--Operation and Maintenance

    A new Sec. 195.405 requires protection against ignitions and safe 
access/egress involving floating roofs in accordance with API RP 2003.
    Section 195.416 has been amended by adding a provision for the 
inspection of cathodic protection systems for breakout tanks in 
accordance with API RP 651.
    Section 195.428 has been amended by adding provisions for the 
installation of over pressure safety devices and overfill protection 
systems in accordance with API RP 2350 and API Standard 2510.
    Section 195.432 has been revised to provide maintenance inspection 
of breakout tanks and diking in accordance with the provisions of API 
Standard 653, and API Standard 2510.

Discussion of Comments

    We received comments from the following sources in response to the 
NPRM:
Trade associations: American Petroleum Institute (API); The Fertilizer 
Institute (TFI); Steel Tank Institute (STI); and Independent Liquid 
Terminals Association (ILTA)
Standards organization: National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Pipeline operators: Conoco Pipeline Company (CONOCO); TE Products 
Pipeline Company (TEPPCO); and Amoco Pipeline Company (AMOCO)
Federal agency: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    In addition, as discussed under another heading below, the 
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
considered and submitted a report on the proposed rules.
    Five of the nine commenters (API, AMOCO, CONOCO, TEPPCO, NFPA) 
generally supported the NPRM, but expressed concerns or suggested 
changes, CONOCO by endorsing API's views. EPA opposed our regulatory 
approach of referencing consensus standards, but nevertheless submitted 
comments on specific issues. Of the remaining three commenters, TFI and 
ILTA raised particular points about the NPRM, and STI recommended 
additional standards to incorporate by reference.
    We did not consider the additional consensus standards STI 
suggested because the suggestions were not tied to any particular 
aspect of the NPRM. All other significant comments on the NPRM are 
summarized in this section of the preamble, where we also explain our 
response to those comments.

Organization of Breakout Tank Rules

    API commented that all substantive regulations on breakout tanks 
should be consolidated in a single subpart in Part 195, rather than 
scattered among several subparts.
    We did not adopt this suggestion because we consider it 
impractical. Part 195 defines a ``pipeline system'' to include breakout 
tanks. Breakout tanks also come within the meaning of ``pipeline 
facility'' as defined in Part 195. Consequently, apart from the final 
rules in this document, there are many substantive regulations in Part 
195 governing pipeline facilities or pipeline systems that apply to 
breakout tanks. For example, the accident reporting requirements in 
Subpart B, the operations and maintenance manual requirements in 
Sec. 195.402, and the training requirements in Sec. 195.403 apply to 
breakout tanks because these regulations cover all parts of a pipeline 
system. So to combine all the substantive requirements for breakout 
tanks in a single subpart would require duplicating many regulations or 
making many cross references, and neither approach is desirable.
    Still we believe readers could benefit from more direction on how 
to recognize which Part 195 regulations apply to breakout tanks. So we 
have replaced Sec. 195.1(c) to explain the applicability of Part 195 to 
breakout tanks. We also revised Sec. 195.1(c) by deleting certain 
compliance deadlines that have expired.

Incorporation by Reference

    Two commenters indicated there is possibly some confusion over the 
exact composition of matter incorporated by reference. First, TEPPCO 
asked whether a document or part of a document that is referenced by 
material incorporated by reference is similarly incorporated by 
reference. AMOCO declared that such internal references have no 
regulatory force. On the contrary, we believe if a document part that 
is incorporated by reference refers to a separate part of the same 
document or another document, compliance with that separate part is 
required if it is necessary for compliance with the original referenced 
document part. If the internal reference is informational or advisory 
and not necessary for compliance, then operators are not obliged to 
comply with it.

[[Page 15929]]

    TEPPCO and API suggested that we amend the section in Part 195 that 
lists referenced documents (Sec. 195.3) to state which parts of the 
documents are incorporated by reference if the whole document is not 
incorporated. Section 195.3(a) now provides that an entire document is 
not incorporated by reference in Part 195 when only a part of the 
document is referenced. Whether an entire document or only part of a 
document is referenced depends on the scope of the reference in the 
Part 195 section that states the reference. For example, under proposed 
Sec. 195.132, certain breakout tanks would have to be designed and 
constructed in accordance with certain API documents. Thus, all 
provisions of the API documents that apply to design and construction 
of breakout tanks would be incorporated by reference. If those 
provisions are found in only parts of the documents, then only those 
parts would be incorporated by reference. But if an entire document 
governs design and construction, the entire document would be 
incorporated by reference. Although we do not think it would be 
practical to duplicate in Sec. 195.3 the scope of the various 
references included throughout Part 195, we are amending the lead-in to 
Sec. 195.3(c) to clarify that the listed publications may be referenced 
in whole or in part in Part 195.

Engineering Judgment

    API commented that its consensus standards were developed as an aid 
to engineering judgment, not as a replacement for it. It said that its 
consensus standards may not fit every tank situation and were not 
intended to be strictly met. Therefore, API suggested that in enforcing 
the standards, we recognize the need for engineering judgment and look 
for attainment of objectives (such as tank integrity and release 
prevention) rather than strict adherence to the terms of the standards.
    On this issue, EPA noted that in many of API's consensus standards 
the requirements are optional. A document's foreword may permit 
operators not to meet sections they consider unnecessary to follow in 
particular circumstances. As an example, EPA cited API 653 (referenced 
in proposed Secs. 195.205, 195.307, and 195.432) in which the foreword 
states ``If tanks are inspected, repaired, altered, or reconstructed in 
accordance with this standard, the owner/operator may elect to modify, 
delete, or amplify sections of this standard.''
    In the NPRM, we proposed the following levels of compliance for the 
different types of API and NFPA documents that would be incorporated by 
reference:
     Standard, Specification or Code--An operator would be 
expected to comply with the provisions.
     Recommended Practice--An operator would be expected to 
follow the provisions unless the operator notes in the procedural 
manual the reasons why compliance with all or certain provisions is not 
necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank or tanks.
     Publication--These provisions provide guidelines, safety 
practices and precautions for the operator's review and consideration 
for inclusion in the procedural manual.
    By this proposal we meant that operators would have to meet the 
referenced parts of standards, specifications, and codes according to 
the terms of those parts. Although operators could decide not to abide 
by referenced parts of recommended practices or publications, we did 
not intend for them to have this same discretion regarding compliance 
with referenced parts of standards, specifications, or codes. 
Therefore, in the final rules, none of the references to parts of 
standards, specifications, or codes may be interpreted to include a 
statement in the document's foreword or elsewhere outside the 
referenced part that would absolve the operator of its responsibility 
to comply with the referenced part. For example, the statement in 
section 1-1.3 of NFPA 30 that the code does not apply to 
``[t]ransportation of flammable and combustible liquids, as governed by 
the U. S. Department of Transportation'' does not nullify the 
references to particular sections of NFPA 30 in final Sec. 195.264.
    Nonetheless, if the referenced part of a standard, specification, 
or code allows or calls for the use of engineering judgment, in 
determining compliance with the referenced part, we will not object to 
the use of judgment. We will, however, compare the judgment used 
against what is reasonable under the circumstances. If an operator 
wishes to achieve a particular objective in a way that differs from the 
referenced part of a standard, specification, or code or falls outside 
the range of allowable judgment, it can request permission to do so by 
applying to us or the appropriate state agency, as applicable, for a 
waiver of the referenced part (see 49 U.S.C. 60118).
    EPA also raised an enforcement issue with regard to the proposed 
references to API recommended practices (Secs. 195.242 (c) and (d), 
195.405, 195.416(j), and 195.428(c)). EPA said that although an 
operator would have to include in its procedural manual its reason for 
not applying a practice to a particular tank, the proposal did not 
provide a way for us to order compliance with the practice if we do not 
agree with the operator's reason.
    This additional provision is not needed, however, because 
operators' procedural manuals are subject to review and amendment by 
our enforcement personnel. Under the enforcement procedures in 49 CFR 
190.237, if our enforcement personnel have reason to believe an 
operator's operations and maintenance procedures are inadequate for 
safety, they conduct proceedings to determine the adequacy and can 
order the operator to change any procedures found inadequate. In 
addition, under 49 CFR 190.233, we can order immediate corrective 
action for any pipeline facility that we believe poses a serious threat 
to life or property.

Performance Standards v. Consensus Standards

    EPA stated that requiring operators to apply consensus standards 
would lock them into present-day technologies and practices, and 
prevent them from using innovative techniques until we grant special 
approvals or reference a later consensus standard that permits the new 
techniques. As an alternative approach, EPA recommended that we adopt 
tank rules that establish the level of performance to be achieved, 
leaving operators free to use the latest technologies and practices to 
achieve it.
    In contrast, API pointed out that its standards are regularly 
revised and reflect constant improvement by committees of experts, so 
that use of new technologies is not discouraged. API also noted that we 
have been amending our pipeline safety standards to stay apace with 
changes to referenced consensus standards.
    We recognize the advantage of performance standards, and Part 195 
has many standards of this kind. But it also has standards that 
incorporate consensus standards by reference. Consensus standards have 
been referenced when performance standards were not available or could 
not be developed soon enough to meet the need for safety regulation. 
Still, in our experience, referencing consensus standards has not 
stymied the use of new pipeline technologies. As API said about its own 
standards, most of the referenced standards are updated regularly. 
Moreover, our pipeline safety regulations allow operators to use new 
technologies permitted under the latest editions of referenced 
consensus standards as long as the new technology does not result in 
less safety than

[[Page 15930]]

required by the referenced edition (see Sec. 195.101).

Environmental Protection

    EPA said that regulations other than the proposed referenced 
standards would be needed to protect the environment adequately against 
potential tank spills. It said operators should be required to evaluate 
breakout tank areas and provide facilities, equipment, or practices at 
critical locations to prevent possible major oil discharges from 
leaving the breakout tank area. EPA also recommended that we require 
proper security measures to protect against releases from vandalism.
    This comment did not acknowledge our many existing regulations for 
breakout tanks that require evaluation and preventive practices to 
guard against environmental damage. For instance, Sec. 195.402(c)(4) 
requires operators, as part of their detailed operations and 
maintenance plan, to determine which facilities would require an 
immediate response to prevent hazards. Sec. 195.403(a)(3) requires 
training to recognize conditions likely to cause emergencies in the 
event of malfunctions or failures; and under Sec. 195.436, operators 
must protect breakout tank areas against vandalism and unauthorized 
entry. Further regulations in 49 CFR Part 194 require operators to 
develop and follow contingency plans for responding to spills from 
breakout tanks, and to provide adequate resources for oil spill 
response. Even more environmental protection would be required by the 
proposed rules that reference consensus standards, especially those 
standards for corrosion control of tank bottoms and spill impoundment. 
Therefore, we think the combination of existing breakout tank 
regulations and those we are adopting in this final rule will result in 
an adequate level of environmental protection. But we will continue to 
monitor the safety and environmental record of breakout tanks and take 
any further action that is warranted by new circumstances.

Overlapping Federal Regulation of Breakout Tanks

    ILTA voiced concern about the dual federal regulation of storage 
tanks at for-hire and marketing terminals. This commenter noted 
correctly that a storage tank comes under the definition of ``breakout 
tank'' in Part 195 if it receives a petroleum product by pipeline and 
then reinjects it into a pipeline for continued transportation. It said 
the tank would be subject to EPA's Spill Prevention Control and 
Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations if it can also transfer the product 
to another mode of transit serving the terminal. ILTA also pointed out 
that our present definition of ``breakout tank'' is not supported by 
the 1971 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between DOT (U.S. Coast 
Guard) and EPA on transportation-related facilities (40 CFR Part 112, 
App. A), and urged us to continue to work with EPA to lessen the 
problems of overlapping jurisdiction. In its comment on this subject, 
EPA asked that we amend our definition of ``breakout tank'' to adhere 
to the Congressional intent that we regulate only those storage tanks 
that are ``incidental to pipeline transportation.'' The agency 
suggested that doing so would require us to exclude tanks that serve 
non-pipeline modes of transportation.
    First, it is important to point out that our current definition of 
``breakout tank'' was adopted with full cognizance that our statutory 
authority over hazardous liquid storage tanks is limited to tanks that 
are incidental to pipeline transportation (46 FR 38358; July 27, 1981). 
We continue to consider this limitation to bar the regulation of 
storage tanks used exclusively in non-pipeline modes of transportation, 
but not to bar the regulation of tanks used intermodally with 
pipelines, such as breakout tanks that also serve cargo vessels, tank 
cars, or tank trucks. The application of Part 195 to intermodal 
breakout tanks was an issue in the case of Exxon Corporation v. United 
States Secretary of Transportation (978 F.Supp. 946), and the court 
concluded the tank in question was subject to Part 195.
    Indeed, we believe that safety and environmental protection are 
enhanced under our definition of ``breakout tank''. The regulations we 
are issuing today incorporate up-to-date pipeline industry safety 
practices that were recently developed by expert engineers to prevent 
significant storage tank accidents. For this reason, we think these 
regulations may be more appropriate than EPA's SPCC rules to prevent 
pipeline breakout tank accidents. And excluding certain categories of 
tanks from the regulations as a way of minimizing regulatory overlap 
may not be in the public interest. The members of our Technical 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee who represent 
environmental interests supported the NPRM's approach to environmental 
protection when the committee discussed the merits of the NPRM.
    Nevertheless, we are concerned that the industry faces overlapping 
federal storage tank regulations at intermodal transportation 
terminals. While the 1971 MOU applies to the Coast Guard's and EPA's 
regulatory authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, we 
cannot ignore its spillover effect on our own regulatory program. 
Therefore, we will continue to talk to EPA officials hopefully to reach 
agreement on the best way for each agency to exercise its regulatory 
authority at intermodal transportation terminals without creating undue 
burdens on industry. In this regard, we will work to (1) clarify each 
agency's jurisdiction to issue pollution prevention and response 
planning regulations, and define which facilities are jointly regulated 
and which are exclusively subject to EPA or RSPA regulations; (2) 
develop a way to resolve site-specific jurisdictional disputes; (3) 
develop information that explains each agency's jurisdiction at 
intermodal facilities; (4) jointly oversee operator compliance; (5) 
address response preparedness issues at certain facilities; and (6) 
commit additional resources to regional response activities.

Anhydrous Ammonia Tanks

    TFI argued that many of the proposed rules were not appropriate for 
anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks. It said that because of their unique 
characteristics, anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks are not treated the 
same as petroleum breakout tanks in matters of design, construction, 
operation, and maintenance. TFI listed various problems it saw with the 
proposed rules and, in some cases, recommended alternative consensus 
standards. This commenter advised that we either exclude anhydrous 
ammonia breakout tanks from the final rules or adopt appropriate 
requirements for these tanks.
    Because the existing Part 195 standards that apply to breakout 
tanks apply equally to anhydrous ammonia and petroleum tanks, we did 
not question whether the proposed references to API and NFPA standards 
would be suitable for both types of tanks. Now, however, in view of 
TFI's comment and having no information to the contrary, we are 
hesitant to impose on operators of anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks any 
of the proposed rules that we believe might not be wholly appropriate 
for such tanks. Therefore, we are adding a sentence to the new 
Sec. 195.1(c) to exclude anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks from final 
Secs. 195.132(b), 195.205(b), 195.242(c) and (d), 195.264(b) and (e), 
195.307, 195.428(c) and (d), and 195.432(b) and (c). At the same time, 
we will continue to monitor the safety performance of anhydrous ammonia 
breakout tanks and

[[Page 15931]]

take any further rulemaking action that is warranted, including 
referencing appropriate consensus standards.

Riveted and Bolted Tanks

    EPA said the proposed rules do not sufficiently address problems on 
riveted and bolted tanks. These tanks, it said, are usually older and 
more susceptible to leaks and their bottoms require different 
inspection methods. API, however, pointed out that API Standard 653 
covers the integrity maintenance of riveted tanks and specifically 
addresses older tanks. API also said most transportation tanks are 
welded and that bolted tanks are used in the exploration and production 
sector of the oil industry.
    Besides API Standard 653, we believe several other consensus 
standards we proposed to reference apply to riveted tanks: API 
Recommended Practice 651, API Recommended Practice 652, API Recommended 
Practice 2003, API Recommended Practice 2350, API Standard 2000, API 
Publication 2026, and NFPA 30. Moreover, our safety data do not 
indicate that additional requirements are needed to combat leakage 
problems in older riveted tanks. For example, in its breakout tank 
report (discussed in the NPRM), the Texas Transportation Institute 
found that the general condition and appearance of the older riveted 
tanks it investigated were excellent. Although EPA correctly observed 
that riveted tank inspection differs from welded tank inspection, the 
NPRM did not propose rules for the methods of inspecting either welded 
or riveted tanks.
    As to bolted tanks, our experience shows that these tanks are used 
primarily to store field production, and few, if any, of these tanks 
are used as breakout tanks subject to Part 195. Any bolted breakout 
tanks that do exist are covered by existing Part 195 requirements and 
are subject to inspection by federal and state pipeline safety 
enforcement personnel.

Operator Error

    EPA stated that API standards do not address the problem of 
operator error, which accounts for a large percentage of pipeline 
spills. EPA suggested operator personnel should receive proper 
training, and after a spill, operators should review their training 
practices to see if changes are needed to prevent spills from 
recurrence based on operator error.
    The NPRM did not propose training requirements because existing 
Sec. 195.403 requires breakout tank operators to have a detailed 
training program for operating and maintenance personnel. Under this 
program, operators periodically review personnel performances and 
change the training as necessary to make it effective. In addition, in 
a separate proceeding, we have proposed new rules on the qualification 
of personnel to perform safety-related tasks (63 FR 57269; Oct. 27, 
1998). We intend to issue a final rule on the qualification of 
personnel in the near future.

Section 195.205(b)(2)

    In this section, we proposed that the repair, alteration, and 
reconstruction of breakout tanks built to API Specification 12F, API 
Standard 620, or API Standard 2510 be done in accordance with those 
respective standards. API commented that because API Standard 2510 
applies to the design and construction of new tanks and has limited 
application to existing tanks, the reference to API Standard 2510 may 
be confusing. It suggested that the references in proposed 
Sec. 195.205(b)(2) be stated more specifically to refer to the 
``design, welding, examination, and material requirements of those 
respective standards.'' API also suggested that we add a sentence to 
proposed Sec. 195.205(b)(2) to refer to API 510, ``Pressure Vessel 
Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and 
Alteration,'' for regulation on the repairs and alteration of tanks 
built to API Standard 2510.
    Based on this comment, final Sec. 195.205(b)(2) contains more 
specific references. And we have added a new paragraph under 
Sec. 195.205(b)(3) regarding use of API 510 for repairs, alteration and 
reconstruction of high pressure tanks.

Section 195.264

    We proposed to increase the present requirements of Sec. 195.264 
related to spill containment and relief venting. In proposed 
Sec. 195.264(b)(1)(i), we referenced section 2-3.4.3 of NFPA 30 for 
secondary containment by impounding around a breakout tank. But we 
proposed to apply the specific requirements in section 2-3.4.3 
concerning ``Class I [flammable] liquids'' to all ``hazardous liquids'' 
subject to Part 195. API objected to this proposed expansion of the 
Class I-specific requirements as inappropriate because these 
requirements are long-standing, well understood, and technically sound. 
NFPA pointed out that our Class I proposal created the false impression 
that section 2-3.4.3 of NFPA 30 is limited to Class I liquids, when, in 
fact, other hazardous liquids are covered as well. Upon 
reconsideration, we believe the proposed expansion of specific Class I 
liquid requirements was not consistent with the intent of the NPRM to 
require the industry to follow consensus standards. Therefore, we have 
not adopted our proposal replacing ``hazardous liquids'' in the final 
rule.
    API also objected to the term ``secondary containment'' in proposed 
Sec. 195.264(b). It said section 2-3.4.3 of NFPA 30 applies to 
impoundment, which better describes the function of diked areas around 
tanks. We agree and have substituted ``impoundment'' for ``secondary 
containment'' in the final rule.
    NFPA suggested we reference additional sections of NFPA 30 in 
Sec. 195.264: section 2-9.3 for security, and sections 2-3.5 and 2-3.6 
for normal and emergency venting. The latter two sections, NFPA said, 
would eliminate the need for references to API documents in proposed 
Sec. 195.264(e)(1)-(3). Since the NPRM did not propose to substantively 
change the existing breakout tank security requirement 
(Sec. 195.264(b)), we did not consider referencing section 2-9.3 of 
NFPA 30 in the final rule. Further, even though the suggested NFPA 30 
sections may yield comparable results, in the absence of negative 
comments about the proposed references to API documents for normal and 
emergency venting, we are leaving these API references in the final 
rule.
    EPA described what it called ``inherent weaknesses'' in the spill 
control provisions of NFPA 30. Specifically, EPA said NFPA 30 limits 
dike height, does not require free board space for precipitation, and 
allows alternatives that can compromise environmental protection. It 
also noted the lack of requirements for certification by a professional 
engineer, spill history records, predictions of spill rate and 
direction, inspection of impoundment, and response plans with 
commitment of personnel and equipment. EPA suggested we adopt its SPCC 
regulations instead of the NFPA requirements. Doing so, EPA said, would 
result in better environmental protection. But API contended the SPCC 
regulation is inappropriate for pipeline breakout tanks because it 
addresses entire plants and contains specific requirements for non-
transportation facilities.
    The weaknesses EPA found with the spill control provisions of NFPA 
30 either do not exist or are mitigated by other considerations. 
Section 2-3.4.3(f) allows dikes of any height that provide normal 
access to the enclosure. The need for free board must be considered as 
required by appendix A-2-3.4.3(b). Although section 1-4 permits 
equivalent alternatives, as we discussed above under the ``Engineering

[[Page 15932]]

Judgment'' heading, this provision is not included in the parts of NFPA 
30 incorporated by reference in Sec. 195.264. None of the Part 195 
rules require operators to obtain professional engineer certifications 
to demonstrate compliance, and we do not consider the lack of such a 
requirement in NFPA 30 to be a shortcoming in the regulation of spill 
control. Breakout tank operators have to keep records of spills under 
Sec. 195.404(b), and Sec. 195.402(c)(4) requires operators to consider 
potential spill characteristics in determining which facilities may 
require immediate response in the event of a failure or malfunction. 
The construction of impoundment must be inspected as required by 
Sec. 195.204, and spill response plans backed by committed resources 
are required by Sec. 195.402(e) and 49 CFR Part 194. In conclusion, we 
are including the proposed references to NFPA 30 in final Sec. 195.264. 
As we said above in the discussion on overlapping federal regulation, 
because the final rules are directed primarily at preventing breakout 
tank accidents, we do not think the SPCC regulations would result in 
better environmental protection.

Section 195.307

    API suggested we take the word ``pressure'' out of the title of 
proposed Sec. 195.307, ``Pressure testing breakout tanks.'' API said 
not all testing under the section is pressure testing.
    This comment probably arose because pressure testing is mentioned 
only in paragraph (e), while paragraphs (a)-(d) deal with pneumatic or 
hydrostatic testing. However, since pneumatic and hydrostatic testing 
are forms of pressure testing, we have kept the proposed title in the 
final rule.

Section 195.405

    We proposed, under Sec. 195.405(b), to reduce the hazards 
associated with maintenance of tank floating roofs by requiring 
operators to consider adding the safety practices of API Publication 
2026 to their operation and maintenance manuals. AMOCO contended this 
proposal was unnecessary because it duplicates similar requirements in 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's confined space 
regulation (29 CFR 1910.146).
    We considered this comment and decided to adopt the proposed rule 
as final. OSHA's regulation has general application to a variety of 
confined spaces, but API Publication 2026 deals specifically with 
entering and exiting floating roofs. Also, if AMOCO's assessment is 
correct, operators's existing procedures should already satisfy the 
guidelines in API Publication 2026. Moreover, as 29 CFR 1910.5(b) 
indicates, OSHA's confined space requirements do not apply to employee 
working conditions for which another federal agency prescribes 
regulations affecting occupational safety or health. This provision 
reduces the potential for problems to result from duplication of any 
OSHA requirement in 29 CFR Part 1910.

Section 195.428 (c)-(e)

    We proposed, under Sec. 195.428(c) and (d), that within 18 months 
of the final rule certain tanks have overfill protection systems that 
meet API Recommended Practice 2350, or meet API Standard 2510 if the 
tank was built to that standard. API, AMOCO, and TEPPCO argued that we 
should not require existing tanks to have these systems. It said 
applying the proposed rule retroactively to tanks without such systems 
would require significant expenditures for conduit, wiring, possibly 
degassing, and temporary removal of the tank from service.
    For these same reasons, we did not intend to apply proposed 
Sec. 195.428(c) and (d) retroactively. Consistent with our statement 
that the proposed rules would result in minimal or no cost for 
operators (63 FR 27908), we intended that operators install overfill 
protection systems as they customarily do: when constructing new tanks 
or significantly altering existing tanks. Therefore, the final rule 
clarifies this limited application, which begins 18 months from today. 
In addition, for clarity and simplification, we have combined proposed 
paragraphs (c) and (d) into final paragraph (c). Final paragraph (d) 
restates proposed paragraph (e) concerning inspecting and testing 
overfill protection systems.

Section 195.432

    In this section we proposed that starting 18 months after the final 
rule is published, the annual inspection now required by existing 
Sec. 195.432 for all breakout tanks include, for carbon and low alloy 
steel, welded or riveted, non-refrigerated tanks, an integrity 
inspection under section 4 of API Standard 653.
    API, AMOCO, and EPA noted a potential conflict between the annual 
inspection deadline and the different intervals that section 4 of API 
Standard 653 provides for various types of inspections. Of particular 
concern were the inspection intervals based on corrosion rate, which in 
some cases could be up to 20 years. API recommended that we drop the 
annual inspection requirement and merely require operators to inspect 
breakout tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653. EPA also 
questioned the annual inspection requirement because it does not define 
the required inspections.
    We agree that the existing and proposed requirements could create a 
conflict of inspection intervals. So final Sec. 195.432(a) includes an 
exception for tanks that are subject to the other inspection 
requirements of Sec. 195.432. We did not eliminate the existing annual 
inspection requirement as API suggested, because it provides for 
maintenance inspection of breakout tanks that are not subject to the 
new integrity inspection requirements, such as anhydrous ammonia tanks 
and non-steel tanks.
    API also pointed out that some tank bottoms cannot be inspected 
under API Standard 653 because the steel bottom has been repaired by a 
concrete cover. API recommended that in cases like this we allow 
operators to use an alternative method, such as a risk-based analysis, 
to assess bottom integrity. Under final Sec. 195.432(b), operators must 
inspect the integrity of atmospheric and low-pressure tanks according 
to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, in view of API's comment, 
the final rule allows an operator to use an assessment technique 
included in its operations and maintenance manual for tank bottoms to 
which access is prevented by structural conditions.
    In another comment on proposed Sec. 195.432, API suggested that we 
incorporate by reference API 510, ``Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: 
Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration,'' as the 
inspection standard for high-pressure tanks built to API Standard 2510. 
API said API 510 is the appropriate inspection standard for such tanks. 
We agree that this standard is more appropriate than API Standard 653 
for such tanks and it is incorporated by reference in final 
Sec. 195.432(c).
    The references to consensus standards do not include parts of those 
standards that are not directly related to carrying out inspections. 
For example, parts of section 4 of API Standard 653 concerning records, 
reports, and inspector qualifications (Sections 4.8-4.10) are not 
incorporated by reference because these parts do not govern the process 
of inspection. In addition, Sec. 195.404(c)(3) requires inspection 
records. And, as previously mentioned, personnel qualification is 
covered by Sec. 195.403 and is the subject of rules proposed in Docket 
No. RSPA-98-3783 (63 FR 57269; Oct. 27, 1998).
    AMOCO was concerned about the application of inspection intervals 
to

[[Page 15933]]

tanks already in compliance with the new integrity inspection 
requirements and tanks not in compliance. To clarify this matter, final 
Sec. 195.432(d) provides that a particular interval begins on the date 
this final rule document takes effect, May 3, 1999, or the operator's 
last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier. We dropped 
the proposed 18-month compliance time from the final Sec. 195.432 
because we considered it unnecessary in view of the inspection 
intervals specified by the referenced standards.

Advisory Committee

     On May 6, 1998, in Washington, DC, we briefed the 
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
(THLPSSC) about this rule. This committee voted to accept the NPRM 
provided that we consider adopting API Publication 340.
     On November 6, 1998, in Washington, DC, we briefed THLPSSC 
about comments received and changes to expect in the final rule. Also 
at this time, we reviewed a five page report on API publication 340 
prepared by SPEC Consulting Services for API's Health and Environment 
Affairs Department. This report was sent to the THLPSSC committee on 
May 14, 1998. This report concluded that API publication 340 need not 
be adopted in this rulemaking. We agreed because, (1) the scope of API 
publication 340 is too broad for this rulemaking; (2) four API 
standards referenced in API 340 are already adopted in this rulemaking; 
(3) this rulemaking goes beyond API Publication 340, and adopts six 
other API consensus standards. The THLPSSC agreed with our conclusion. 
A copy of this report is in the docket.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The Department of Transportation (DOT) 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) and this rule was 
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. DOT does not 
consider this action significant under DOT's regulatory policies and 
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    This rule would amend the regulations for breakout tanks to include 
the incorporation by reference of certain of the latest consensus 
standards for above ground storage tanks. The adoption of consensus 
standards is consistent with the President's goal of regulatory 
reinvention and improvement of customer service to the American people. 
There is minimal or no cost for operators of breakout tanks to comply 
with this rule because these consensus standards have been developed 
and implemented by industry organizations to ensure the safety of above 
ground petroleum storage tanks.
    The standards for steel storage tanks were specifically developed 
by the API. API is the major petroleum industry trade organization and 
many of its members are operators of petroleum pipelines with tank 
farms. Additionally, the standard for secondary containment is taken 
from an NFPA code that is a widely used consensus standard for the 
design of diking (containment by impounding) for above ground storage 
tanks. The NFPA is an association with a membership of more than 67,000 
individuals and over 100 national trade and professional organizations. 
Its mission is to reduce the burden of fire on the quality of life by 
advocating scientifically based consensus codes and standards, 
research, and education for fire and safety issues.
    The operators of breakout tanks storing hazardous liquids are very 
familiar with these API storage tank and NFPA diking standards because 
they have been extensively implemented at pipeline terminals throughout 
the United States. Conversations with an industry storage tank 
organization representing medium and smaller operators of breakout 
tanks confirm that most of their members are already complying with the 
tank standards. Because the economic impact of this rule is minimal, 
the incorporation by reference of these industry standards does not 
warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation.
    For several years, OMB Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in 
the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards'', encouraged, but did 
not require, agencies to participate in consensus standards bodies and 
to adopt voluntary consensus standards whenever possible. The National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-
113) codified and expanded the participation and reporting requirement 
of OMB Circular A-119. Federal agencies and departments are now 
required to use technical standards that are developed and adopted by 
voluntary consensus bodies, where practicable. RSPA prescribed API and 
NFPA standards for petroleum storage tanks meets the goals and 
requirements set forth in both OMB Circular A-119 and NTTAA.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    As discussed above, RSPA is incorporating consensus standards that 
were developed and published by authoritative organizations associated 
with the petroleum industry. Consequently, these safety standards are 
well known and have been implemented by operators of aboveground 
storage tanks at hazardous liquid pipeline terminals throughout the 
United States. RSPA has had conversations with an operators' 
association representing these tank farms and with other persons and 
those parties do not expect this rule to have a significant economic 
impact on the smaller operators of breakout tanks. Moreover, in the 
event that some operators of breakout tanks have not yet implemented 
all the safety-related items in these consensus standards, the 
regulations prescribed in this final rule would allow operators 18 
months for compliance after the date of publication of the final rule.
    Therefore, based on the facts available which indicate the 
anticipated minimal 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.
    RSPA, in the proposed rule, had requested comments from small 
entities which might be impacted by this rule. We received one comment 
from an association which includes small operators. This association 
stated that most, if not all, members already adhere to the consensus 
tank standards adopted by this rulemaking. This supports our earlier 
conclusion that this rule will have no significant impact on 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 126120

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on states, on 
the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, in accordance with the Executive Order 12612 
(52 FR 41685; Oct. 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that the action does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

D. Executive Order 13084

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and 
Coordination

[[Page 15934]]

with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this rule would not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal 
governments, the funding and consultation requirements of this 
Executive Order do not apply.

E. Unfunded Mandates

    This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of over $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The API Standard 653 includes sample checklists, provided for the 
operators' periodic inspection of welded or riveted, non-refrigerated, 
atmospheric pressure, aboveground steel storage tanks. The checklists 
identify the tank components and auxiliary items that should be 
considered for inspection and provide blank spaces for insertion of the 
inspection date and notation of the inspector's comments (if any). The 
use of the checklists improves the effectiveness and minimizes the 
paperwork burden associated with the existing inspection requirements 
in 49 CFR 195.432. This API standard has been published for several 
years and during that time it has been available to all operators of 
petroleum storage tanks (i.e. refinery, marketing, production and 
pipeline).
    For the API Recommended Practices referred to in this rulemaking, 
it is stated that the operator would be expected to follow the 
provisions unless the operator notes in the procedural manual the 
reasons why compliance with all or certain provisions is not necessary 
for the safety of a particular breakout tank or tanks. Each operator's 
procedural manual already requires the inclusion and updating of 
similar safety-related procedures and practices, so that such 
annotation is consistent with the long standing function of the 
procedural manual. Moreover, most operators already follow the API 
Recommended Practices that are prescribed for adoption and would not 
need to make such an annotation in the procedural manual.
    Therefore, there is little or no additional burden and no paperwork 
analysis is required for this rule.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    RSPA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined 
that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact are in the docket.

H. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems

    Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on 
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900. 
This glitch, the Year 2000 problem, could cause computers to stop 
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem 
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work. 
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, 
Federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem 
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that 
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to 
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year 
2000 problem.
    This rule does not specify business process changes or require 
modifications to computer systems. Because this rule apparently does 
not affect organizations' ability to respond to the Year 2000 problem, 
we do not intend to delay the effectiveness of the requirements in this 
rule.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

    Incorporation by reference, Breakout tanks, Hazardous liquids, 
Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.
    In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends part 195 of title 49 
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

    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. Section 195.1(c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Breakout tanks subject to this part must comply with 
requirements that apply specifically to breakout tanks and, to the 
extent applicable, with requirements that apply to pipeline systems and 
pipeline facilities. If a conflict exists between a requirement that 
applies specifically to breakout tanks and a requirement that applies 
to pipeline systems or pipeline facilities, the requirement that 
applies specifically to breakout tanks prevails. Anhydrous ammonia 
breakout tanks need not comply with Secs. 195.132(b), 195.205(b), 
195.242 (c) and (d), 195.264 (b) and (e), 195.307, 195.428 (c) and (d), 
and 195.432 (b) and (c).
    3. Section 195.3 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7), by revising 
the introductory text of paragraph (c), by revising paragraphs (c)(2) 
and (c)(3)(v), and by adding paragraph (c)(6), to read as follows:


Sec. 195.3  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 11 Tracy Drive, 
Avon, MA 02322.
    (c) The full titles of publications incorporated by reference 
wholly or partially in this part are as follows. Numbers in parentheses 
indicate applicable editions:
* * * * *
    (2) American Petroleum Institute (API):
    (i) API 510 ``Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance 
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration'' (8th edition, June 1997).
    (ii) API Publication 2026 ``Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating 
Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service'' (2nd edition, April 
1998).
    (iii) API Recommended Practice 651 ``Cathodic Protection of 
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks'' (2nd edition, December 1997).
    (iv) API Recommended Practice 652 ``Lining of Aboveground Petroleum 
Storage Tank Bottoms'' (2nd edition, December 1997).
    (v) API Recommended Practice 2003 ``Protection Against Ignitions 
Arising out of Static, Lightning, and Stray Currents'' (6th edition, 
December 1998).
    (vi) API Recommended Practice 2350 ``Overfill Protection for 
Storage Tanks In Petroleum Facilities'' (2nd edition, January 1996).
    (vii) API Specification 5L ``Specification for Line Pipe'' (41st 
edition, 1995).
    (viii) API Specification 6D ``Specification for Pipeline Valves 
(Gate, Plug, Ball, and Check Valves)'' (21st edition, 1994).
    (ix) API Specification 12F ``Specification for Shop Welded Tanks 
for Storage of Production Liquids'' (11th edition, November 1994).
    (x) API Standard 1104 ``Welding Pipelines and Related Facilities'' 
(18th edition, 1994).
    (xi) API Standard 620 ``Design and Construction of Large, Welded, 
Low-Pressure Storage Tanks'' (9th edition, February 1996, Including 
Addenda 1 and 2).

[[Page 15935]]

    (xii) API Standard 650 ``Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage'' (9th 
edition, July 1993 (Including Addenda 1 through 4).
    (xiii) API Standard 653 ``Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and 
Reconstruction'' (2nd edition, December 1995, including Addenda 1, 
December 1996).
    (xiv) API Standard 2000 ``Venting Atmospheric and Low-Pressure 
Storage Tanks'' (4th edition, September 1992).
    (xv) API Standard 2510 ``Design and Construction of LPG 
Installations'' (7th edition, May 1995).
    (3) * * *
    (v) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII ``Pressure 
Vessels,'' Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 edition with 1995 Addenda).
* * * * *
    (6) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA):
    (i) ANSI/NFPA 30 ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code,'' 
(1996).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    4. Section 195.132 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.132  Design and construction of aboveground breakout tanks.

    (a) Each aboveground breakout tank must be designed and constructed 
to withstand the internal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to 
be stored therein and any anticipated external loads.
    (b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after 
October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires 
one of the following:
    (1) Shop-fabricated, vertical, cylindrical, closed top, welded 
steel tanks with nominal capacities of 90 to 750 barrels (14.3 to 119.2 
m \3\) and with internal vapor space pressures that are approximately 
atmospheric must be designed and constructed in accordance with API 
Specification 12F.
    (2) Welded, low-pressure (i.e., internal vapor space pressure not 
greater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)), carbon steel tanks that have wall 
shapes that can be generated by a single vertical axis of revolution 
must be designed and constructed in accordance with API Standard 620.
    (3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal 
pressures at the tank top approximating atmospheric pressures (i.e., 
internal vapor space pressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or 
not greater than the pressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) 
must be designed and constructed in accordance with API Standard 650.
    (4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space 
pressures greater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of 
2000 gallons (7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) 
must be designed and constructed in accordance with API Standard 2510.
    5. Section 195.205 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 195.205  Repair, alteration and reconstruction of aboveground 
breakout tanks that have been in service.

    (a) Aboveground breakout tanks that have been repaired, altered, or 
reconstructed and returned to service must be capable of withstanding 
the internal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to be stored 
therein and any anticipated external loads.
    (b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this 
section requires the following for the tanks specified:
    (1) For tanks designed for approximately atmospheric pressure 
constructed of carbon and low alloy steel, welded or riveted, and non-
refrigerated and tanks built to API Standard 650 or its predecessor 
Standard 12C, repair, alteration, and reconstruction must be in 
accordance with API Standard 653.
    (2) For tanks built to API Specification 12F or API Standard 620, 
the repair, alteration, and reconstruction must be in accordance with 
the design, welding, examination, and material requirements of those 
respective standards.
    (3) For high pressure tanks built to API Standard 2510, repairs, 
alterations, and reconstruction must be in accordance with API 510.
    6. Section 195.242 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 195.242  Cathodic protection system.

* * * * *
    (c) For the bottoms of aboveground breakout tanks with greater than 
500 barrels (79.5 m \3\) capacity built to API Specification 12F, API 
Standard 620, or API Standard 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C), 
the installation of a cathodic protection system under paragraph (a) of 
this section after October 2, 2000, must be in accordance with API 
Recommended Practice 651, unless the operator notes in the procedural 
manual (Sec. 195.402(c)) why compliance with all or certain provisions 
of API Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of a 
particular breakout tank.
    (d) For the internal bottom of aboveground breakout tanks built to 
API Specification 12F, API Standard 620, or API Standard 650 (or its 
predecessor Standard 12C), the installation of a tank bottom lining 
after October 2, 2000, must be in accordance with API Recommended 
Practice 652, unless the operator notes in the procedural manual 
(Sec. 195.402(c)) why compliance with all or certain provisions of API 
Recommended Practice 652 is not necessary for the safety of a 
particular breakout tank.
    7. Section 195.264 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.264  Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency 
venting or pressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.

    (a) A means must be provided for containing hazardous liquids in 
the event of spillage or failure of an aboveground breakout tank.
    (b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this 
section requires the following for the aboveground breakout tanks 
specified:
    (1) For tanks built to API Specification 12F, API Standard 620, and 
others (such as API Standard 650 or its predecessor Standard 12C), the 
installation of impoundment must be in accordance with the following 
sections of NFPA 30:
    (i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in 
accordance with Section 2-3.4.3; and
    (ii) Impoundment by drainage to a remote impounding area must be 
installed in accordance with Section 2-3.4.2.
    (2) For tanks built to API Standard 2510, the installation of 
impoundment must be in accordance with Section 3 or 9 of API Standard 
2510.
    (c) Aboveground breakout tank areas must be adequately protected 
against unauthorized entry.
    (d) Normal/emergency relief venting must be provided for each 
atmospheric pressure breakout tank. Pressure/vacuum-relieving devices 
must be provided for each low-pressure and high-pressure breakout tank.
    (e) For normal/emergency relief venting and pressure/vacuum-
relieving devices installed on aboveground breakout tanks after October 
2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (d) of this section requires the 
following for the tanks specified:
    (1) Normal/emergency relief venting installed on atmospheric 
pressure tanks built to API Specification 12F must be in accordance 
with Section 4, and Appendices B and C, of API Specification 12F.
    (2) Normal/emergency relief venting installed on atmospheric 
pressure tanks (such as those built to API Standard 650 or its 
predecessor Standard 12C) must be in accordance with API Standard 2000.

[[Page 15936]]

    (3) Pressure-relieving and emergency vacuum-relieving devices 
installed on low pressure tanks built to API Standard 620 must be in 
accordance with Section 7 of API Standard 620 and its references to the 
normal and emergency venting requirements in API Standard 2000.
    (4) Pressure and vacuum-relieving devices installed on high 
pressure tanks built to API Standard 2510 must be in accordance with 
Sections 5 or 9 of API Standard 2510.
    8. Section 195.307 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 195.307  Pressure testing aboveground breakout tanks.

    (a) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Specification 12F 
and first placed in service after October 2, 2000, pneumatic testing 
must be in accordance with section 5.3 of API Specification 12F.
    (b) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 620 and 
first placed in service after October 2, 2000, hydrostatic and 
pneumatic testing must be in accordance with section 5.18 of API 
Standard 620.
    (c) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 650 and 
first placed in service after October 2, 2000, hydrostatic and 
pneumatic testing must be in accordance with section 5.3 of API 
Standard 650.
    (d) For aboveground atmospheric pressure breakout tanks constructed 
of carbon and low alloy steel, welded or riveted, and non-refrigerated 
and tanks built to API Standard 650 or its predecessor Standard 12C 
that are returned to service after October 2, 2000, the necessity for 
the hydrostatic testing of repair, alteration, and reconstruction is 
covered in section 10.3 of API Standard 653.
    (e) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 and 
first placed in service after October 2, 2000, pressure testing must be 
in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, 
Division 1 or 2.
    9. Section 195.405 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 195.405  Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress 
involving floating roofs.

    (a) After October 2, 2000, protection provided against ignitions 
arising out of static electricity, lightning, and stray currents during 
operation and maintenance activities involving aboveground breakout 
tanks must be in accordance with API Recommended Practice 2003, unless 
the operator notes in the procedural manual (Sec. 195.402(c)) why 
compliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice 
2003 is not necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank.
    (b) The hazards associated with access/egress onto floating roofs 
of in-service aboveground breakout tanks to perform inspection, 
service, maintenance or repair activities (other than specified general 
considerations, specified routine tasks or entering tanks removed from 
service for cleaning) are addressed in API Publication 2026. After 
October 2, 2000, the operator must review and consider the potentially 
hazardous conditions, safety practices and procedures in API 
Publication 2026 for inclusion in the procedure manual 
(Sec. 195.402(c)).
    10. Section 195.416 (j) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 195.416  External corrosion control.

* * * * *
    (j) For aboveground breakout tanks where corrosion of the tank 
bottom is controlled by a cathodic protection system, the cathodic 
protection system must be inspected to ensure it is operated and 
maintained in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651, unless the 
operator notes in the procedure manual (Sec. 195.402(c)) why compliance 
with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice 651 is not 
necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank.
    11. Section 195.428 is amended by revising the title and by adding 
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 195.428  Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection 
systems.

* * * * *
    (c) Aboveground breakout tanks that are constructed or 
significantly altered according to API Standard 2510 after October 2, 
2000, must have an overfill protection system installed according to 
section 5.1.2 of API Standard 2510. Other aboveground breakout tanks 
with 600 gallons (2271 liters) or more of storage capacity that are 
constructed or significantly altered after October 2, 2000, must have 
an overfill protection system installed according to API Recommended 
Practice 2350. However, operators need not comply with any part of API 
Recommended Practice 2350 for a particular breakout tank if the 
operator notes in the manual required by Sec. 195.402 why compliance 
with that part is not necessary for safety of the tank.
    (d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section for inspection and testing of pressure control 
equipment apply to the inspection and testing of overfill protection 
systems.
    12. Section 195.432 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.432  Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.

    (a) Except for breakout tanks inspected under paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 
months, but at least once each calendar year, inspect each in-service 
breakout tank.
    (b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-
service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks 
according to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural 
conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may 
be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and 
maintenance manual under Sec. 195.402(c)(3).
    (c) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-
service steel aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 
according to section 6 of API 510.
    (d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced 
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on 
the operator's last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is 
earlier.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 22, 1999.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-7442 Filed 4-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P