[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 831-848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-266]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. RSPA-01-8663; Amdt. 195-75]
RIN 2137-AD56


Pipeline Safety: Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Accident Reporting 
Revisions

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs 
Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule makes changes to the reporting requirements 
for hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. The rule lowers the current 
release reporting threshold of 50 barrels to a new threshold of 5 
gallons, and makes changes to the accident report form. The changes are 
necessary because the existing reporting threshold and report form do 
not yield sufficient information for effective safety analysis. This 
final rule also changes the ``bodily harm'' criteria for accident 
reporting to conform to the gas pipeline reporting requirements. This 
change is necessary to harmonize reporting by hazardous liquid and gas 
pipeline operators.

DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Little by phone at (202) 366-
4569, by e-mail at [email protected], or by mail at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Room 7128, 400 
7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The mission of RSPA's OPS is to ensure the safe, reliable, and 
environmentally sound operation of the nation's approximately 154 
thousand miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. OPS shares responsibility 
for inspecting and overseeing the nation's pipelines with State 
pipeline safety offices. Both Federal and State regulators depend on 
accident reports submitted by pipeline companies to manage inspection 
programs and to identify trends in hazardous liquid pipeline safety. In 
recent years, Congress, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
and DOT's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have urged OPS to 
improve the quality of accident data required to be submitted by 
hazardous liquid pipeline operators.

Release Threshold

    RSPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on March 20, 
2001 (66 FR 15681). The NPRM proposed changing the hazardous liquid 
accident reporting requirement from a threshold release of 50 barrels 
to 5 gallons; and adding to the report form (RSPA F7000-1), more 
specific questions on accident location, causes, and consequences.
    The NPRM also proposed that a spill under 5 barrels meeting all of 
the following criteria, need not be reported to RSPA:

    (1) The other circumstances enumerated in Sec. 195.50 did not 
apply to the spill;
    (2) The spill did not result in water pollution;
    (3) The spill was attributable to a pipeline maintenance 
activity;
    (4) The spill was confined to company property or pipeline 
right-of-way; and
    (5) The spill was cleaned up promptly.

    After consideration of all comments, this final rule amends the 
pipeline safety regulations to lower the reporting threshold for 
hazardous liquid pipeline releases from 50 barrels to 5 gallons, with 
an exception for spills under 5 barrels resulting from pipeline 
maintenance activities. This rule makes corresponding changes to the 
hazardous liquid accident report form to make it more useful for safety 
analysis.
    The old report form consisted of two pages. The new report form 
consists of four pages. Completion of the first page only, is required 
for small releases (between 5 gallons and under 5 barrels) that are not 
reportable under the other Sec. 195.50 criteria, nor result in water 
pollution (water pollution is as described in Sec. 195.52(a)(4)). 
Completion of all four pages will be required for releases of: 5 
barrels or more that are reportable under the other criteria in 49 CFR 
195.50; or 5 gallons or more that result in water pollution.

Change in ``Bodily Harm'' Criteria for Accident Reporting

    In another NPRM (Docket No. RSPA-99-6106; 65 FR 15290; March 22, 
2000), RSPA proposed changing the ``bodily harm'' criteria in 49 CFR 
195.50(e). RSPA proposed changing the language in 49 CFR 195.50(e) to 
require reporting only if an injury associated with a hazardous liquid 
pipeline accident requires hospitalization of the injured person.
    The current language at Sec. 195.50(e) which triggers a reporting 
requirement reads as follows:
    Bodily harm to any person resulting in one or more of the 
following:

    (1) Loss of consciousness.
    (2) Necessity to carry the person from the scene.
    (3) Necessity for medical treatment.
    (4) Disability which prevents the discharge of normal duties or 
the pursuit of normal activities beyond the day of the accident.

    These criteria require reporting of even the most minor injury. The 
lack of a definition of medical treatment in the regulations means, if 
a bandage is applied at the scene the accident is reportable, even if 
it does not meet any of the other reportability criteria.
    The comparable language in the gas pipeline safety rules requires 
gas operators to report releases of gas that involve a ``personal 
injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization.'' (49 CFR 191.3, 
191.5, 191.9, and 191.15). As explained in the NPRM, this wording 
better describes the information that RSPA is seeking. Accordingly, 
RSPA proposed to update the hazardous liquid pipeline accident 
reporting requirements at Sec. 195.50(e) to eliminate the discrepancy 
between the accident reporting criteria for gas and hazardous liquid 
pipelines.
    This final rule removes the language currently in Sec. 195.50(e) 
and replaces it with ``a personal injury necessitating in-patient 
hospitalization.''

Comments

Comments on Proposed Change in ``Bodily Harm'' Criteria

    On May 3, 2000, the proposed changes in the injury criteria for 
reportability of hazardous liquid pipeline accidents were discussed at 
a joint meeting of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety 
Standards Committee and the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 
Committee. These statutorily mandated committees, which are made up of 
representatives from the government, industry, and the general public, 
review pipeline safety regulations. Some committee members expressed 
concern that the change would weaken the reporting requirements for 
hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. The concern was that some 
accidents that are reportable under the current language, would no 
longer be reportable under the proposed language.
    We noted the proposed change would not cause any otherwise 
reportable hazardous liquid pipeline accident to

[[Page 832]]

become non-reportable. For example, under the proposed change, the 1994 
San Jacinto River accident in Harris County, Texas, would still need to 
be reported based on product loss and property damage criteria. We also 
noted, most accidents causing serious injury are also reportable under 
one of the other criteria. The ``bodily harm'' category was included as 
a reporting criterion in the unlikely event that an accident resulting 
in such injury would not fall into one of the other reporting criteria. 
Additionally, we noted that the reporting language in Part 192, which 
embodies our original intent relative to the injury criteria for 
reportability of pipeline accidents, was adopted before the ``bodily 
harm'' language in part 195.
    In response to the NPRM in Docket No. RSPA-99-6106, RSPA received 
comments from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Cascade 
Columbia Alliance.
    API supported the proposed accident reporting criteria change in 
Sec. 195.50 to make the injury criteria consistent with that used for 
natural gas pipelines. It noted that the clarification makes reporting 
of accidents consistent across gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, and 
``grew out of discussions among RSPA, the pipeline industry, and State 
regulators.'' In contrast, the Cascade Columbia Alliance asserted that 
the proposed injury language weakened reporting requirements for 
hazardous liquid pipelines and would ``encourage pipeline operators to 
avoid hospitalization for their workers so as to avoid filing an 
accident report.''
    RSPA's intention for the change is to ensure that reporting of 
accidents is consistent for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. 
The regulation is not aimed at tracking worker injuries.

Comments on Lower Reporting Threshold

    RSPA received comments from eleven sources in response to the NPRM 
in this docket (66 FR 15681; March 20, 2001). Virtually all commenters 
were supportive of the need for improved information about hazardous 
liquid pipeline accidents. The American Society of Safety Engineers 
supported the data improvement initiative and believed the benefits of 
the improved information would outweigh the small increased costs. The 
American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Association of Oil Pipe 
Lines (AOPL), trade associations that represent many companies involved 
in all aspects of the oil and gas industry, filed joint comments 
prepared in coordination with both API and AOPL's members.
    Several commenters suggested that the $50,000 property damage 
threshold for an accident report was redundant and should be eliminated 
in light of the lowering of the volumetric release threshold for 
reporting from 50 barrels to 5 gallons. For the same reason, one 
commenter suggested that the $50,000 property damage threshold for 
telephonic notice of a release of hazardous material be eliminated.
    The NPRM did not propose any change in the property damage 
threshold for filing accident report Form F7000-1. Although many 
``over-$50,000-property-damage'' accidents may also be reportable under 
the 5 gallon threshold criterion, retaining the ``over-$50,000-
property-damage'' criterion will continue to provide more complete 
data, than if eliminated. Changes to the telephonic reporting 
requirement are beyond the scope of the NPRM.
    Several commenters believed we underestimated the time and cost of 
reporting the expanded information required by the revisions to Form 
F7000-1.
    In response, we point the commenters to the analysis of costs in 
the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' section of this Final Rule for more 
information on the basis of our estimates.
    A group of students from Miami International University submitted 
four recommendations--
    ``(1) Given the twofold environmental effect of hazardous liquid or 
carbon dioxide spills to not only the immediate ground but also the 
atmosphere (air), and therefore, consequences realistic on any 
property, the reporting requirement should be lowered from 5 barrels to 
10 gallons (38 liters) for spills on any property whether from accident 
or maintenance.
    (2) Aggregate spills of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide of a 
minimum of 10 gallons (38 liters) will pose sufficient damage to 
warrant immediate clean-up, and therefore, it should be mandated.
    (3) Lowering the reporting requirement for spills from 5 barrels to 
5 gallons (19 liters) only when it is not readily cleaned up on any 
property.
    (4) Tools for Reporting Accidents (Sec. 195.50): Since technology 
has evolved and continues to do so, accident reporting should be done 
in an efficient, cost-effective, time-constrained manner in tune with 
the technology available to us today. Furthermore, electronic accident 
reporting is effective and productive for meaningful incident 
information. The DOT, Office of Public [sic] Safety, should establish a 
web site where different accident report-hazardous liquid pipeline 
forms could be electronically filled out in case of an accident. Some 
of the benefits of electronic filing are: (i) instant information 
available, (ii) immediate dangers readily visible, and, (iii) reduced 
cost to companies. * * *''
    In addition, API and Colonial Pipeline Company suggested that 
access to information both by RSPA, the public, and pipeline operators 
can be significantly improved by providing for electronic reporting of 
accidents. They urged us to move expeditiously to provide operators 
with the ability to file accident reports electronically.
    We believe the bulk of hazardous liquid releases remain liquid at 
ambient temperatures, and therefore have little impact on the 
atmosphere. The exception is highly volatile liquid spills, which are 
gaseous at ambient temperatures. We have chosen to exclude from the 
reporting requirement hazardous liquid releases under 5 barrels that 
result from maintenance operations. Our information is that such spills 
occur regularly upon the opening of pipelines for insertion of spheres, 
smart pigs, or for routine inspections. The spills are usually caught 
in a berm or other containment device; are cleaned up immediately; and 
have little or no impact on the environment. We believe information on 
such releases would not be helpful in accident trending analysis. 
Maintenance spills must be promptly cleaned up to avoid the reporting 
requirement. Any non-maintenance spill of 5 gallons or more must be 
reported.
    With regard to electronic reporting, we agree that electronic 
reporting is efficient and economical. Electronic reporting for 
hazardous liquid pipeline accidents will be available via the OPS 
Internet homepage at http://ops.dot.gov beginning January 1, 2002.
    API and AOPL suggested reorganizing the sections in the accident 
report to simplify it. API suggested that [the] first page of [the] 
accident reporting form should be reorganized to clearly differentiate 
the information that must be provided for all spills from that which is 
required for those spills greater than 5 barrels.'' API also suggested 
that latitude and longitude should be collected for all spills, not 
just those greater than 5 barrels as proposed in the NPRM. API 
suggested that the causal categories for small accidents should ``use 
identical language to that for large spills (i.e., `Excavation' should 
be `Excavation damage or other outside force', `Material and Welds' 
should be `Material and/or weld failures,' `Operation should be 
`Incorrect Operation.' This will allow the longer

[[Page 833]]

form to provide insight for defining causes consistently across both 
types of releases.'' In addition, API suggested that instead of 
collecting spill quantity in two separate places on the form, that 
spill size be collected on page one for all spills.
    We agreed with these comments and reorganized and changed the form 
as suggested.
    API further noted that ``The instructions for the accident 
reporting form change the definition of `injury' for the purpose of 
accident reporting. The regulations must also be changed in Sec. 195.50 
(reporting accidents) and Sec. 195.52 (telephonic notification). The 
changes in the definition for `injury' under the instructions will make 
hazardous liquid pipeline reporting requirements comparable to those 
for natural gas pipelines. These changes must be implemented in the 
regulations themselves under Sec. 195.50 and Sec. 195.52. The changes 
cannot be implemented through the reporting form or instructions 
alone.''
    We agree with the suggested change to Sec. 195.50(e) and adopted 
it. However, Section 195.52 was not the subject of the NPRM, and a 
change to that section would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    API suggested that categories for property damage should be 
modified to more accurately define the categories that are applicable 
and that make sense to pipeline operators. ``For accuracy, this section 
of the reporting form should be titled `Compensated losses.' Losses 
that accrue to the operator should be separated from losses that accrue 
to affected individuals or the public. Property damage or loss is 
really a misnomer. Although losses do occur, on this reporting form we 
are really accounting for damages for which an operator has provided 
reimbursement to the community, the public, or affected individuals. It 
is actually a measure of those losses that can in some way be 
reimbursed or losses that accrue to the operating company itself. API 
recommends that this portion of the accident form be redrafted as 
follows:

Compensated Losses (Estimated)

* Public/Community Losses:
    --Estimated Public/private property     $
     damage reimbursed by operator.
    --Cost of emergency response            $
     undertaken by or reimbursed by
     operator.
    --Cost of longer term environmental     $
     remediation undertaken by or
     reimbursed by operator.
    --Other...............................  $
 
Operator losses:
    --Value of product lost...............  $
    --Value of operator property damage...  $
    --Other...............................  $''
 

    We adopted the API suggestions with some changes.
    API also suggested that:

    ``Form Part F (environmental impacts), item 6 should be changed 
from `wildlife mortality' to `wildlife impact.' Mortality is too 
high a threshold for measuring the impact of accidents on wildlife. 
As an example, any bird that is oiled during an accident and 
survives is clearly impacted. We believe that a reasonable person 
would judge such oiling as an impact and expect that the industry be 
held to such a reasonable standard.''

    We agree and changed the form accordingly.
    Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) recommended that additional 
information be added to Part G (Leak Detection Information) of the 
proposed accident form. Specifically, Colonial recommended that line 
items be added for ``estimated leak rate'' and ``estimated percentage 
of flow.'' Colonial believes this would provide valuable information to 
RSPA and the regulated community.
    We may consider obtaining this additional information through a 
separate rulemaking.
    Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works 
Department, with City of Renton, Washington, suggested that a 
``requirement for immediate notification of the local public safety/
emergency management agencies is critical. These are the first line 
responders, and our experience shows us that often they are not 
contacted in the event of a leak for hours or even days. However, this 
requirement clearly should be part of the federal law, or at least the 
agency rules.''
    We determined this recommendation to be beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Enron Transportation Services (ETS) commented that ``[t]he 
availability of more detailed pipeline accident information is of value 
not only to OPS for regulatory purposes, but is also highly valued by 
the pipeline industry in identifying potential risks to pipeline safety 
and integrity. Most pipeline operators utilize this accident 
information to immediately evaluate their systems for the potential of 
similar risk factors and take steps to mitigate those factors on a 
timely basis whenever possible. ETS therefore strongly agrees that 
improving the method of accident data collection provides a benefit to 
the industry in being able to more reliably identify the cause of these 
accidents. Reducing the reporting limits to those proposed may indeed 
be counterproductive, however, in that the database will be flooded 
with information relating to minor pipeline problems as opposed to 
obtaining better information about potentially serious pipeline safety 
related issues. One of the reasons that the cost level limit for 
reportable accidents was raised in 1984 was to eliminate the reporting 
of non-significant pipeline accidents, and this proposed rulemaking 
will completely reverse that intent.''
    We noted that the cost threshold for reporting accidents was raised 
in 1994 from $5,000.00 to $50,000.00 to achieve parity between 
reporting of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline accidents, not 
``to eliminate reporting of non-significant pipeline accidents.'' 
Regarding ``flooding the database with information relating to minor 
problems,'' we believe the only way to determine that small spills are 
``minor problems'' is to collect information on such spills.
    ETS commented that ``the decision process for the determination of 
any pipeline remedial action should be the responsibility of the 
pipeline operator based upon that operator's assessment of the known 
risks and economic issues that only the operator must bear. Without 
first hand knowledge of all of the numerous factors that must be 
considered in making the repair versus replacement decision, this 
pipeline safety data may lead to hasty decisions that are not in the 
overall best interests of public safety. One of the consequences may be 
outside pressure to apply significant financial resources to a pipeline 
facility that presents a much lower risk to public safety than another 
less publicly visible facility.''
    We recognize that it is industry's responsibility to determine when 
rehabilitation and replacement of any pipeline facility may be needed. 
We believe that better overall accident information will provide 
industry with a useful tool to help make better decisions about 
rehabilitation and replacement.
    ETS noted that ``[t]he reduction in the spill reporting limit is 
noted in this section as being included in proposed bills now before 
Congress.'' ETS estimates that the low reporting limit is going to have 
a major impact on both the pipeline operators and DOT. Therefore, it 
believes the reporting limit should be established by Congress.
    Based on outreach with the hazardous liquid pipeline industry and 
comments by that industry to the NPRM, we do not believe that a reduced 
spill reporting limit will have a major impact on pipeline operators 
because the additional burden to the pipeline

[[Page 834]]

industry to provide the data does not require significant effort. The 
additional data will improve the information available upon which to 
make safety decisions. Based on action thus far in Congress, we have no 
reason to believe that Congress would object to this final rule.
    ETS also commented that ``* * * flooding the DOT accident database 
with numerous minor leaks or spills will ultimately bias the accident 
cause data and thereby mask the causes of more serious pipeline 
accidents that need to be addressed by DOT and the industry. This 
reporting requirement is also redundant in that data concerning leaks 
impacting bodies of water are already being documented under the 
applicable environmental regulations.''
    We believe the accident database will not be flooded with minor 
releases because the proposed changes eliminate the need for reporting 
releases that occur during normal maintenance activities as described 
in the NPRM. We are focused on obtaining sufficient information about 
small releases to adequately categorize the risks posed by such 
accidents. At the same time we will obtain more precise information on 
spills of 5 or more barrels--information that is needed to further 
address safety issues. Although information on spills is being reported 
to environmental agencies under other regulations, we need to obtain 
this information to properly manage our pipeline safety 
responsibilities.
    Tosco Corporation (Tosco) participated in an industry effort to 
accumulate information about releases that are now less than the 
current 50 barrel or more criteria. Tosco noted that ``information has 
been collected by a majority of the liquid industry on releases down to 
5 gallons for the past few years. We believe it is critical information 
that can be used in the future for risk and integrity management 
efforts.'' Tosco also suggested that ``[t]he proposed * * * criteria 
for the non-reporting of releases of 5 gallons or more but less than 5 
barrels may need to be better defined in the preamble to the final 
rule. Would a release occurring during the hydrostatic testing of a 
pipeline during maintenance activities that has a petroleum liquid as 
the test medium fall under this criteria?'' Tosco also commented that 
the revisions to the accident reporting form are ``well thought out'' 
and that the information that ``will be generated by this new form will 
indeed help to precisely detect trends in the causes of reportable 
pipeline accidents.''
    We pointed out that releases meeting the requirements of the normal 
maintenance operations exception in the final rule need not be 
reported.
    The Citizens Advisory Committee on Pipeline Safety (Washington 
State) ``disagreed with our proposal to reduce the threshold for 
reportable spills from the current level of 50 barrels to 5 gallons. 
The Committee stated that sufficient information can be acquired from 
pipeline operators by requiring reporting of incidents that are 1 (one) 
barrel or larger. The requirement of reporting all spills of 5 gallons 
or more appears to be more stringent than is required by good practice 
and necessary record keeping.'' OPS worked with a joint data team 
composed of State, Federal, and industry representatives to determine a 
reasonable accident reporting threshold. Higher reporting thresholds 
were considered, but we chose 5 gallons because we believe the benefit 
of reporting releases at the 5 gallon level outweighs the burden of 
collecting it. The benefit is in increased awareness of pipeline 
releases, especially the frequency of small spills. The data team 
believed that a higher threshold than 5 gallons would still leave 
concerns about the lack of information about such spills, especially if 
they impacted water.
    The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the 
Interior supported RSPA's efforts to improve pipeline accident data 
collection and analyses. MMS suggested that 49 CFR 195.1(b)(5) should 
be deleted since it includes jurisdictional criteria used prior to the 
1996 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MMS and OPS, which 
clarified each agency's jurisdiction over offshore pipeline facilities. 
MMS also questions whether the same reporting requirements and accident 
form would apply for a cumulative 5 gallons leaked from a pipeline 
slowly or intermittently over a period of weeks or months.
    The NPRM did not address the jurisdictional issues raised by MMS. 
We are addressing those issues in a separate rulemaking. As for the 
intermittent leak scenario, 49 CFR 195.401(b) requires a hazardous 
liquid pipeline operator to correct within a reasonable time any 
condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of the 
pipeline system. We consider a release of hazardous material (a leak) 
from a pipeline to be a condition that must be promptly corrected.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Polices and Procedures

    RSPA does not consider this rulemaking to be significant under 
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (85 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). 
RSPA also does not consider this rulemaking to be significant under DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 20, 1979).
Benefits
    The additional data that OPS will receive by lowering of the 
accident reporting threshold from 50 barrels to 5 gallons and the more 
detailed causation reporting, will enable RSPA and the hazardous liquid 
pipeline industry to better identify safety issues and trends in 
pipeline safety. Operators can then make informed decisions about 
changing their procedures to improve pipeline safety.
Costs
    RSPA's revised form is composed of a ``short'' form (page one of 
the four page form for spills of less than 5 barrels as described 
above) and a ``long'' form of 4 pages for spills of 5 barrels or more, 
or spills to water as described above. We estimate that it will take 
each operator about 1 hour to complete the short form (2 minutes per 
field x 37 fields on short form) and that the long form will take about 
7 hours to complete (2 minutes per fields x 224 fields). We recognize 
that some fields will take only a few seconds to complete and that some 
will take more than 2 minutes, but we estimate that the type of 
information requested on the long and the short forms will require 1 
and 7 hours to complete, respectively. We also recognize that more time 
may be needed to collect the basic information required for completing 
the form, but we believe that companies already maintain this 
information as part of routine recordkeeping.
    We estimate that the number of accidents reported annually will be 
1,839. OPS extrapolated from data in the American Petroleum Institute 
(API) Pipeline Performance Tracking Initiative (PPTI), an anonymous 
reporting system that collects information on spills down to 5 gallons. 
Of the 1,839 annual reports, we estimate that 427 will require the long 
form and 1,412 will require the short form. Below is RSPA's estimates 
of the aggregate time required to complete the revised forms:

427 long forms  x  7 hours = 2,989 hours.
1,412 short forms  x  1 hour =1,422 hours.
Total: 1,839 forms; 4,411 hours

    We estimated the hourly cost of the person completing the form 
would be $40. This was based on the U.S. Department of Labor's National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Earnings for 1999. The hourly wage for

[[Page 835]]

a Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Manager (the closest 
category to a pipeline manager) was $26.03 per hour. This was 
multiplied by 1.35 to account for fringe benefits ($26.03  x  1.35 = 
$35.14). We added an inflation factor of 14% to account for inflation 
from 1999 to 2002 ($35.14  x  1.14 = $40.05). If the average cost per 
hour is $40, the total annual industry cost is $176,440 annually (4,411 
 x  $40 = $176,440).
    The hazardous liquid pipeline industry historically files an 
average of 166 reports annually. Completion of each of these reports 
was estimated to take 6 hours, based on the time needed to research the 
information, or 996 hours annually (166 reports  x  6 hours). At $40 
per hour, the total industry cost averages $39,840 annually (996  x  
$40 = $39,840).
    The net annual increase to the hazardous liquid pipeline industry 
resulting from the revisions to the reporting criteria and to the form 
is $136,600 ($176,440-$39,840 = $136,600). Dividing the incremental 
cost increase of $136,600 by approximately 200 hazardous liquid 
pipeline operators, the average incremental cost increase of this 
proposal is $683 per operator.
Comments
    Two commenters, a pipeline operator and the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), questioned RSPA's 
estimate of 7 hours to complete the long form. The SBA Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy wanted to know the basis for the 7 hour estimate.
    We worked with a government/industry pipeline data team over the 
last several years to determine the extent of information that needed 
to be collected. RSPA is asking for only the most important information 
so as not to unduly burden pipeline operators. Moreover, the 
information requested on the revised form is not available from other 
sources.
    We estimate that it will take each operator about 1 hour to 
complete the short form (2 minutes per field x 37 fields on short form) 
and that the long form will take about 7 hours to complete (2 minutes 
per fields x 224 fields). Electronic reporting of accidents, which will 
begin on January 1, 2002, should further reduce the time needed to 
complete the form. We believe this estimate is accurate based on these 
considerations.
Conclusion
    RSPA believes that the additional cost of $136,600 annually is a 
minimal economic impact on the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. The 
benefits accruing to OPS and the pipeline industry; through the 
improvements in the quality of the information collected, should easily 
outweigh the cost.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We sought input from the public on the impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket 
(66 FR 15681; March 20, 2001). No one responded to this request. The 
SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, however, made a few comments on behalf 
of small businesses. SBA asked the basis for using the short versus the 
long form. We described the usage of the short versus long form above. 
SBA also posed a question regarding how many operators RSPA would 
consider small. For several years, RSPA has sought public comment from 
small hazardous liquid operators. RSPA solicited public comment from 
small operators in its recent rulemakings on pipeline integrity 
management. No comments from small hazardous liquid operators were 
forthcoming.
    The hazardous liquid pipeline industry is a highly competitive, 
capital intensive industry that has experienced many mergers and 
buyouts in recent years. SBA's criteria for defining a small entity in 
the hazardous liquid pipeline industry is 1,500 employees, as specified 
in the North American Industry Classification System codes (486110--
Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil and 486910--Pipeline 
Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products). We do not collect 
information on number of employees or revenues for pipeline operators. 
Such a collection would require OMB approval. However, we have 
discussed with SBA the characterization of hazardous liquid pipelines 
for purposes of this rulemaking. We intend to continue our dialog with 
SBA on its efforts to ascertain the number of small business operators 
in the hazardous liquid pipeline industry.
    We made the following observations in assessing the effect of this 
rule on small businesses:
    (1) Whether you characterize a hazardous liquid pipeline company as 
small or large, the cost is small in absolute terms. The average cost 
for all companies based on an estimated total impact of $136,600 
annually is $683.00 per operator. We believe the benefits of this rule 
far outweigh the company cost.
    (2) Assuming equal operating conditions across all pipeline 
mileage, the probability of having a reportable accident on a per mile 
basis is 1,839 expected reportable accidents per year over 154,000 
miles of hazardous liquid pipeline, or about 1 reportable accident per 
hundred miles of pipeline. Companies with thousands of miles of pipe 
will typically have more reportable accidents than companies with 
hundreds of miles of pipe or less. Companies with less mileage will 
have a proportionately lower share of the estimated $136,600 annual 
cost posed by this rulemaking, for an average total per company cost of 
less than $683;
    (3) We estimate that the nation's 80 largest hazardous liquid 
pipeline companies (based on pipeline mileage reported to RSPA by 
operators annually) operate more than 91% of the nation's total 
hazardous liquid pipeline mileage. About 120 companies operate the 
remaining 9% of mileage. Assuming this 9% of mileage were operated by 
``small operators,'' these operators would experience no more than 9% 
of the reportable accidents and incur 9% or less of the $136,600 annual 
cost. This amounts to $12,294 total annual costs, or about $102 per 
company. Many of these 120 operators are, however, owned by or parts of 
nationally recognized large corporations, so the burden would actually 
be less than $102 per small business annually.
    Based on the increase in costs to the industry of this rulemaking, 
RSPA certifies, pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains information collection requirements as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)). 
RSPA has previously submitted a copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
analysis to OMB for its review. The name of the information collection 
is ``Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Record Keeping 
and Accident Reporting.'' The purpose of this information collection is 
to improve the current hazardous liquid pipeline accident information 
collection.
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, no persons are required 
to respond to a collection of information unless a valid OMB control 
number is displayed. OMB has approved the revised form RSPA F7000-1 and 
this information collection. The OMB control number for this 
information collection is 2137-0047. For more details, see the 
Paperwork Reduction Analysis available for copying and review in the 
public docket.

[[Page 836]]

Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian 
tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance 
costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 
13175 do not apply.

Executive Order 13132

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This 
final rule does not adopt any regulation that (1) has substantial 
direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments; or 
(3) preempts State law. Therefore, the consultation and funding 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) do 
not apply.

Executive Order 13211

    This rulemaking is not a ``significant energy action'' within the 
meaning of Executive Order 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'') It is not 
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rulemaking has not been 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

Unfunded Mandates

    This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    RSPA has analyzed the final rule in accordance with section 
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332), 
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), 
and DOT Order 5610.1D, and has determined that this action would not 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, because 
information collection does not impact the environment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

    Anhydrous Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Incorporation by reference, 
Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    For all the reasons described in this final rule, RSPA is amending 
Title 49, Part 195, 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. Amend Sec. 195.50 to revise paragraph (b), to remove paragraph 
(c), to redesignate paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (c) 
through (e) and revising the newly designated paragraphs, to read as 
follows:


Sec. 195.50  Reporting accidents.

* * * * *
    (b) Release of 5 gallons (19 liters) or more of hazardous liquid or 
carbon dioxide, except that no report is required for a release of less 
than 5 barrels (0.8 cubic meters) resulting from a pipeline maintenance 
activity if the release is:
    (1) Not otherwise reportable under this section;
    (2) Not one described in Sec. 195.52(a)(4);
    (3) Confined to company property or pipeline right-of-way; and
    (4) Cleaned up promptly;
    (c) Death of any person;
    (d) Personal injury necessitating hospitalization;
    (e) Estimated property damage, including cost of clean-up and 
recovery, value of lost product, and damage to the property of the 
operator or others, or both, exceeding $50,000.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 21, 2001.
Ellen G. Engleman,
Administrator.
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

[[Page 837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.016


[[Page 838]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.017


[[Page 839]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.018


[[Page 840]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.019


[[Page 841]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.020


[[Page 842]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.021


[[Page 843]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.022


[[Page 844]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.023


[[Page 845]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.024


[[Page 846]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.025


[[Page 847]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.026


[[Page 848]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA02.027

[FR Doc. 02-266 Filed 1-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-C