[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56970-56976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. RSPA-97-2717; Notice 1]
RIN 2137-AD10


Pipeline Safety: Recommendations To Change Hazardous Liquid 
Pipeline Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to change some of the safety standards for 
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. The changes are based on 
recommendations by the National Association of Pipeline Safety 
Representatives (NAPSR). We believe the changes will improve the 
clarity and effectiveness of the present standards.

DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on the rules 
proposed in this notice must do so by November 5, 2002. Late filed 
comments will be considered so far as practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by mailing or delivering an 
original and two copies to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590-0001. The Dockets Facility is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays when the facility is 
closed. Or you may submit written comments to the docket electronically 
at the following Web address: http://dms.dot.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section for additional filing information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow by phone at 202-366-4559, 
by fax at 202-366-4566, by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Filing Information, Electronic Access, and General Program Information

    All written comments should identify the docket and notice numbers 
stated in

[[Page 56971]]

the heading of this notice. Anyone who wants confirmation of mailed 
comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. To file 
written comments electronically, after logging on to http://dms.dot.gov, click on ``ES Submit.'' You can also read comments and 
other material in the docket at http://dms.dot.gov. General information 
about our pipeline safety program is available at http://ops.dot.gov.

Background

    NAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from state agencies 
that participate with RSPA in the federal pipeline safety regulatory 
program. Each year NAPSR holds regional meetings to discuss safety and 
administrative issues, culminating in resolutions for program 
improvement.
    Following NAPSR's comprehensive review of the gas pipeline safety 
standards in 49 CFR Part 192,\1\ we asked NAPSR to begin a similar 
review of the hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards in 49 CFR Part 
195. As with Part 192, the purpose of the Part 195 review was to 
identify standards that NAPSR considered unclear or hard to enforce. 
NAPSR compiled the results of its review in a report titled ``Part 195 
Project'' (April 1995), a copy of which is in the docket. The report 
includes 30 different recommendations for changes to Part 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We invited the public to comment on the results of NAPSR's 
Part 192 review during a proceeding to eliminate overly burdensome 
gas pipeline safety standards (Docket PS-124; 58 FR 59431; November 
9, 1993). Although in that proceeding we adopted only four of 
NAPSR's 34 recommendations, three more were proposed in a proceeding 
to update regulations (65 FR 15290; Mar 22, 2000), and we are 
actively considering the rest for further rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed each recommendation to decide if rulemaking is 
needed. The results of that review, which led to the rule changes 
proposed by this notice, are discussed under the next heading. We found 
that 18 of the recommendations had already been adopted or proposed to 
be adopted in earlier rulemaking actions (No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 
15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30). Of the remaining 12 
recommendations, we are proposing to adopt 5 (No. 11, 13, 17, 19, and 
28) and have declined to adopt 7 (No. 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 22, and 29).

Disposition of NAPSR Recommendations

1. Sec.  195.1(b)(7) Applicability

    Recommendation. Exempt marine transfer piping systems that do not 
cross public thoroughfares.
    Response. Transfer lines between vessels (e.g., ships) and port 
facilities are regulated for safety by the U.S. Coast Guard. Section 
195.1(b)(3)(ii) exempts from Part 195 all low-stress pipelines 
regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard. This exemption covers low-stress 
marine transfer lines. In addition, transfer lines at a marine 
terminals fall under the exemption in Sec.  195.1(b)(8)(ii). This 
latter exemption applies to facilities at a materials transportation 
terminal that are used exclusively to transfer hazardous liquid or 
carbon dioxide between non-pipeline modes of transportation or between 
a non-pipeline mode and a pipeline. NAPSR suggested it is unclear that 
the term ``materials transportation terminal'' includes marine 
terminals. However, within the context of Sec.  195.1(b)(8), the term 
clearly relates to non-pipeline modes of transportation, and Sec.  
195.1(b)(8)(i) identifies vessels as one these modes. Thus, we do not 
think rulemaking is needed to clarify the exemption of transfer lines 
at marine terminals.

2. Sec.  195.2 Definitions

    Recommendation. To be consistent with the Pipeline Safety Act, 
define ``gathering line'' as a pipeline 6.625 inches or less in nominal 
diameter.
    Response. We have not adopted this recommendation because doing so 
would not be consistent with the pipeline safety law. Rural gathering 
lines \2\ are exempt from Part 195 (Sec.  195.1(b)(4)). The effect of 
redefining ``gathering line'' as NAPSR recommended would be to extend 
Part 195 to cover currently unregulated rural gathering lines that are 
larger than 6.625 inches in diameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 195.2 defines ``gathering line'' as ``a pipeline 
219.1 mm (8\5/8\ in) or less nominal outside diameter that 
transports petroleum from a production facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RSPA's authority to regulate rural gathering lines is limited to 
certain lines called ``regulated gathering lines,'' which must be 
defined based on various factors in addition to pipe diameter (49 
U.S.C. 60101). The statutory provision we believe NAPSR had in mind 
merely requires that the definition of ``regulated gathering line'' 
exclude certain lines 6 inches or less in nominal diameter. This 
provision does not require DOT to regulate rural gathering lines larger 
than 6 inches in nominal diameter. We have not yet decided to regulate 
any rural gathering lines and so have not yet proposed to define 
``regulated gathering line.''

3. Sec.  195.2 Definitions

    Recommendation. In the definition of ``production facility,'' 
specifically exclude storage tanks not associated with production.
    Response. We have not adopted this recommendation because we feel 
the present definition of ``production facility'' clearly includes only 
those storage tanks that are associated with production. Not only does 
the definition specifically refer to ``equipment used in production * * 
* or associated storage,'' but it specifically excludes equipment not 
``used in the process of extracting petroleum or carbon dioxide from 
the ground,'' a process generally thought of as production.

4. Sec.  195.3 Matter Incorporated by Reference

    Recommendation. Add API tank standards 650 and 653 to the list of 
documents incorporated by reference.
    Response. Section 195.3 has been amended to include API standards 
650 and 653 (64 FR 15935; Apr. 2, 1999).

5. Sec.  195.3 Matter Incorporated by Reference

    Recommendation. Clarify which parts of referenced documents are 
incorporated by reference.
    Response. Section 195.3 has been amended to clarify which parts of 
documents are incorporated by reference (59 FR 33396; June 28, 1994).

6. Sec.  195.50(e)

    Recommendation. Make the hospitalization criterion for accident 
reporting consistent with the comparable gas pipeline reporting 
criterion.
    Response. Section 195.50 has been amended to make the 
hospitalization reporting criterion consistent with comparable 
reporting criterion for gas pipelines (67 FR 836; Jan. 8, 2002).

7. Subpart C Design Requirements, Design Factor Sec.  195.105

    Recommendation. In furtherance of Recommendation No. 8, define 
class locations for hazardous liquid pipelines similar to the class 
location definitions for gas pipelines under 49 CFR 192.5.
    Response. We have not adopted this recommendation because the need 
to base design requirements for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide 
pipelines on class location has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. 
Also, the concept is controversial in view of the behavioral 
differences between hazardous liquid and gas pipelines. Furthermore, 
Sec.  195.452, our recently published integrity management rule, 
requires additional safety in areas of increased population, which is 
what NAPSR sought to do through class location definitions.

[[Page 56972]]

8. Sec.  195.106 Internal Design Pressure

    Recommendation. Establish design safety factors based on class 
location and temperature similar to the factors required for gas 
pipelines.
    Response. As stated in the response to Recommendation No. 7, the 
need to base design requirements for hazardous liquid and carbon 
dioxide pipelines on class location has not been satisfactorily 
demonstrated. Also, there is no need to establish temperature derating 
factors for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines like those 
for gas pipelines in 49 CFR 192.115. As indicated by the table of 
factors in Sec.  192.115, the properties of pipeline steel are not 
affected by temperatures as high as 250[deg]F. While the heat of 
compression may cause gas pipelines to exceed this temperature, the 
operation of hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines does not 
cause the pipeline temperature to exceed 250[deg]F. This difference is 
recognized by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The 
ASME B31.8 Code for gas pipelines includes a temperature derating 
factor in the design formula for steel pipe, but the ASME B31.4 Code 
for petroleum pipelines does not include a temperature derating factor 
in the design formula for steel pipe.

9. Sec.  195.132 Aboveground breakout tanks

    Recommendation. Require tank design according to API 650.
    Response. Section 195.132 has been amended to require tank design 
according to API 650 (64 FR 15935; Apr. 2, 1999).

10. Sec.  195.214 Welding: General

    Recommendation. Reference API 1104 and ASME Boiler & Pressure 
Vessel Code, Section IX, as welding procedure qualification standards.
    Response. In a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Pipeline 
Safety: Periodic Updates to Pipeline Safety Regulations'' (65 FR 15290; 
Mar. 22, 2000), we proposed to amend Sec.  195.214 by incorporating by 
reference Section 5 of API 1104 and Section IX of ASME Boiler & 
Pressure Vessel Code as standards for qualifying welding procedures.

11. Sec.  195.222 Welders: Qualification of Welders

    Recommendation. Require continuing qualification of welders.
    Response. Paragraph 434.8.3(c) of ASME B31.4 requires 
requalification of welders who have not engaged in a particular welding 
process for a period of 6 months or more. Similarly, our gas pipeline 
safety regulations (49 CFR Part 192) do not allow a welder to weld with 
a particular process unless the welder has welded with that process 
within the previous 6 months (Sec.  192.229(b)). Further, within the 
previous 6 months, each welder must have had one weld tested and found 
acceptable under API 1104 (Sec.  192.229(c)(1)).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because of the large amount of low-stress distribution 
lines, welder qualification standards in Sec. Sec.  192.227 and 
192.229 allow alternative means of qualifying welders on low-stress 
pipe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the interest of making our gas and hazardous liquid pipeline 
regulations consistent as far as practical, we are proposing to amend 
Sec.  195.222 as NAPSR recommended. In view of the B31.4 requirement 
for welder requalification, which generally represents current industry 
safety practices, the proposed amendment should not significantly 
increase the costs of compliance. Moreover, companies that operate both 
regulated gas and hazardous liquid pipelines may find regulatory 
consistency advantageous because it may ease the transfer of welders 
from liquid to gas pipelines.

12. Sec.  195.228 Welds and Welding Inspection: Standards of 
Acceptability

    Recommendation. Require tank welding according to API 650.
    Response. Section 195.132 has been amended to require tank 
construction, which includes welding, according to API 650 (64 FR 
15935; Apr. 2, 1999).

13. Sec.  195.252 Backfilling

    Recommendation. Require backfilling to be performed according to 
the standards for gas pipelines to guard against structural damage.
    Response. NAPSR reported that inspections of pipelines using 
instrumented internal inspection devices have identified many 
deleterious dents and gouges due to poor quality backfill material 
adversely affecting the pipeline. Paragraph 434.11 of B31.4 requires 
that backfilling must provide firm support for the pipe and prevent 
damage to the pipe and coating. A similar requirement is in effect for 
gas pipelines (Sec.  192.319(b)) and for hazardous liquid and carbon 
dioxide pipelines (Sec.  195.252). However, Sec.  192.319(b) 
specifically states that pipe and coating are not to be damaged by 
either the backfilling equipment or material.
    We agree with NAPSR that this more specific wording has the 
potential to increase safety for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide 
pipelines, particularly in light of the requirement in Sec.  195.204 
that pipe installation must be inspected for compliance with Part 195. 
Therefore, we are proposing to replace Sec.  195.252 with the standards 
in Sec.  192.319(b). Because this proposal merely clarifies an existing 
requirement, there should not be any increased cost of compliance.
    NAPSR further suggested we require that backfill material be free 
of objects which may cause damage to the pipe or pipe coating. We did 
not adopt this suggestion because such material may not always be 
readily available in the quantity needed to fill the ditch. Under Sec.  
192.319(b) and the proposed rule, material with potentially damaging 
rocks may be used in backfilling, but only if damage to the pipe or 
coating is prevented by means such as a sufficient initial layer of 
material that is free of potentially damaging rocks.

14. Sec.  195.260 Valves: Location

    Recommendation. Establish a 10-mile maximum distance between 
shutoff valves to minimize the adverse effects of spills.
    Response. To minimize the effects of spills, remote-control or 
automatic shut-off valves and a leak detection system are needed. In 
Docket PS-93, Notice 2, we concluded that there was insufficient 
justification to require the installation of remote-control or 
automatic shut-off valves at uniform intervals along gas and hazardous 
liquid pipelines (55 FR 23514; June 8, 1990). Subsequently, we 
completed a study required by the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act 
of 1988 on the feasibility and effectiveness of installing remote-
control or check valves in certain circumstances. This study, 
``Emergency Flow Restricting Devices Study'' (March, 1991), and our 
further assessment of remote control valves and associated means to 
minimize product releases (Docket No. PS-133) (59 FR 2802; January 19, 
1994; and 60 FR 44822; August 29, 1995) provided the basis for a new 
integrity management rule in Sec.  195.452(i)(65 FR 75408; Dec. 1, 
2000). This new rule requires operators to install remote control or 
check valves in particular circumstances to protect high consequence 
areas. In view of our previous decision against requiring operators to 
install uniformly spaced valves and the lack of any new information to 
the contrary, we have not adopted NAPSR's valve spacing recommendation. 
However, we feel the new requirement in Sec.  195.452(i) substantially 
resolves the safety concern that caused NAPSR to make the 
recommendation.

15. Sec.  195.264 Construction-Breakout Tanks

    Recommendation. Require tank construction according to API 650.

[[Page 56973]]

    Response. Section 195.132 has been amended to require tank 
construction according to API 650 (64 FR 15935; Apr. 2, 1999).

16. Sec.  195.302(c) Hydrostatic Testing

    Recommendation. Require tank testing according to API 650.
    Response. Section 195.307(c) has been established to require 
hydrostatic testing of tanks according to API 650 (64 FR 15936; Apr. 2, 
1999).

17. Sec.  195.310 Hydrostatic Test Records

    Recommendation. Require hydrostatic test records to include 
temperature of the test medium or pipe.
    Response. We agree with NAPSR that temperature data are an 
important consideration in determining the validity of a hydrostatic 
test. A pressure drop due to a decrease in temperature during the test 
period could be incorrectly seen as a leak. More important, a pressure 
rise due to an increase in temperature could hide the indication of a 
small leak.
    Therefore, it is necessary to mathematically account for any 
temperature-related pressure change to ensure the absence of leaks 
during the test. Operators customarily collect temperature data and 
make such calculations during hydrostatic tests.
    The main purpose of keeping test records is to show compliance with 
the testing requirements, one of which is to maintain the test pressure 
without leakage (Sec.  195.302(a)). NAPSR's recommendation is 
consistent with this objective. Adopting the recommendation should not 
increase costs significantly because operators commonly collect 
temperature data. Therefore, we are proposing to amend Sec.  195.310 to 
require operators to include relevant temperature data among their test 
records.

18. Sec.  195.401(b) Continuing Surveillance and Risk Management 
Programs

    Recommendation. Require a risk-based continuing evaluation program 
to assure pipeline integrity.
    Response. Section 195.452 requires operators to undertake a 
continual process of assessment and evaluation of integrity threats as 
part of a risk-based integrity management program.

19. Sec.  195.403 Training

    Recommendation. Clarify the training required for personnel to 
evaluate and respond to fire emergencies.
    Response. We agree with NAPSR that Sec.  195.403(a)(5), which 
requires operators to train personnel in ``the proper use of 
firefighting procedures and equipment, fire suits, and breathing 
apparatus,'' is unclear regarding the level of training required for 
firefighting. We also agree that the terms ``fire suit'' and 
``breathing apparatus'' are ambiguous, and using such gear with 
inadequate training could be harmful to personnel and unnecessarily 
delay or impede response by fully trained firefighters.
    Therefore, as NAPSR recommended, we are proposing to amend Sec.  
195.403(a)(5) to require that emergency response training include basic 
evaluation of fire hazards and the appropriate use of portable fire 
extinguishers and other on-site fire control equipment. We did not 
include in the proposed rule several other items NAPSR recommended 
(response appropriate to the situation, contacting the fire department, 
evacuating people from the immediate area, closing valves which could 
supply fuel to the fire, and coordination with emergency responders 
such as firefighters) because they are covered by existing regulations. 
Under Sec. Sec.  195.402(e) and 195.403(a)(1), operators must develop 
procedures for handling these items and then train personnel to carry 
out the procedures.

20. Sec.  195.406 MOP

    Recommendation. For pipelines existing before Part 195 took effect 
that transport hazardous liquids that are not highly volatile, allow 
the maximum operating pressure to be set at 80 percent of past pressure 
in lieu of testing under Subpart E.
    Response. Section 195.406(a)(5) allows all older hazardous liquid 
pipelines to be operated at 80 percent of a qualified past pressure in 
lieu of testing under Subpart E.

21. Subpart F, Part 195, Operation and Maintenance

    Recommendation. Establish definite requirements for abandoning 
pipelines; apply these requirements to any temporarily idle, inactive, 
or out-of-service pipeline not maintained under Part 195; and apply the 
requirements for converted pipelines (Sec.  195.5) to abandoned 
pipelines that are returned to service.
    Response. Section 195.402(c)(10), which requires operators to 
establish and follow procedures for abandoning pipelines, covers the 
essence of NAPSR's recommendation with respect to abandoning pipelines. 
Those procedures are subject to review and amendment by federal and 
state government inspectors. We believe these existing requirements are 
sufficient and substantially satisfy NAPSR's recommendation to 
establish definite requirements for abandonment.
    Regarding pipelines temporarily removed from service, if the 
pipeline continues to contain a potentially harmful quantity of 
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide, we consider it to be used in 
transportation and subject to the operation and maintenance 
requirements of Part 195, including corrosion control and routine 
surveys. If no potentially harmful quantity of hazardous liquid or 
carbon dioxide remains in the pipeline, we do not consider it to be in 
use, and the pipeline need not meet the operation and maintenance 
requirements while it is not used in transportation. However, before 
returning the pipeline to service, the operator must ensure that it 
fully complies with the operation and maintenance requirements. NAPSR 
recommends that if an operator defers maintenance on a temporarily out-
of-service pipeline, the pipeline should be disconnected, purged, and 
sealed as if it were abandoned. Considering the low risk involved 
(given the absence of a potentially harmful quantity of hazardous 
liquid or carbon dioxide), and the temporary out-of-service status of 
the pipeline, we do not think such additional requirements are needed 
for safety or environmental protection. Furthermore, under Sec.  
195.402, operators' operation and maintenance manuals should contain 
procedures for the safe temporary removal of a pipeline from service 
and for responding to any inadvertent operation of the pipeline while 
it is out of service. Thus, we have not adopted NAPSR's recommendation 
regarding out-of-service pipelines.
    Any pipeline that is abandoned under Part 195 and later returned to 
Part 195 service would have to fully comply with the operation and 
maintenance requirements upon its return to service. NAPSR recommends 
that, in addition, we require such pipelines to meet the Sec.  195.5 
conversion requirements, which entail review of operation and 
maintenance records, visual inspections, and strength testing. But 
compliance with the operation and maintenance standards would involve a 
records review to learn which recurring inspections and tests must be 
performed. And visual inspections of rights-of-way and aboveground 
facilities would also be required. Although the operation and 
maintenance standards do not require visual inspection of selected 
portions of buried pipelines as Sec.  195.5 does, if a recommissioned 
abandoned pipeline affects a high consequence area, the operator would 
have to pressure test or internally inspect the pipeline in accordance 
with

[[Page 56974]]

the schedule required by Sec.  195.452. In addition, upon return to 
service, every abandoned pipeline must meet the strength testing 
requirements of Sec.  195.302 or Sec.  192.303. Given that abandoned 
pipelines are not often returned to service and the lack of reported 
accidents attributable to recommissioned abandoned pipelines, we do not 
think rulemaking is needed at this time. Thus, we have not adopted 
NAPSR's recommendation to apply Sec.  195.5 to abandoned pipelines that 
are recommissioned.

22. Sec.  195.412(b)

    Recommendation. Add a 6-month grace period to the maximum 5-year 
interval between inspections of water crossings to account for flood 
disturbances.
    Response. We believe that 5 years allows operators enough time to 
schedule inspections to avoid anticipated periods of flooding. If 
unanticipated flooding precludes a scheduled inspection, in enforcing 
Sec.  195.412(b) we would allow the operator a reasonable time to 
conduct the inspection, and we encourage participating state agencies 
to do likewise. Adding 6 months to the maximum interval between 
inspections would not necessarily alleviate the problem of 
unanticipated flooding. Therefore, we have not adopted NAPSR's 
recommendation.

23. Sec.  195.414 Cathodic Protection

    Recommendation. Establish criteria for the adequacy of cathodic 
protection.
    Response. New Sec.  195.571 incorporates by reference paragraphs 
6.2 and 6.3 of NACE Standard RP0169-96 as criteria for cathodic 
protection (66 FR 67005; Dec. 27, 2001).

24. Sec.  195.416 External Corrosion Control

    Recommendation. Require prompt action to correct corrosion control 
deficiencies.
    Response. New Sec.  195.573(e) requires operators to correct 
identified corrosion control deficiencies within the times allowed by 
Sec.  195.401(b) or Sec.  195.452(h), as applicable (66 FR 67006; Dec. 
27, 2001).

25. Subpart F, Part 195, Operation and Maintenance Uprating

    Recommendation. Establish steps to follow in uprating a pipeline, 
or increasing its maximum operating pressure (MOP).
    Response. The Part 195 regulations that apply to uprating are 
Sec. Sec.  195.402 and 195.406. Under Sec.  195.402, operators must 
have and follow procedures for normal operations. Since uprating is a 
normal operation, if an operator uprates a pipeline, the operator's 
procedures for normal operations must cover uprating. In addition to 
these procedures, Sec.  195.406 limits any uprated MOP to the lowest 
pressure among five parameters.
    NAPSR's report suggests that more specific requirements for 
uprating are needed, like those for gas pipelines in Part 192. However, 
the report does not explain why the present regulations are inadequate, 
and we are not aware of any accidents related to inappropriate uprating 
procedures. Although the report indicates that a few operators may not 
fully understand the present requirements, we do not feel lack of 
knowledge is sufficient reason to make the regulations more detailed. 
Therefore, we have not adopted the recommendation.

26. Sec.  195.428 Overpressure safety devices

    Recommendation. Specifically require testing of thermal relief 
valves at maximum 3-year intervals.
    Response. Section 195.428 requires annual inspection and testing of 
``relief valves.'' We believe this term is generally understood to mean 
a valve designed to open or close a vent when a preset pressure or 
temperature is reached. Although NAPSR may be correct that most 
operators do not consider thermal relief valves to be pressure control 
devices, Sec.  195.428 distinguishes pressure control devices from 
relief valves. Because we believe thermal relief valves, or relief 
valves set to function at preset temperatures, are covered by the 
existing inspection and testing requirements in Sec.  195.428, we do 
not think specific treatment of thermal relief valves is necessary. Nor 
do we think there is a need to relax those requirements by allowing 
thermal relief valves to be inspected and tested at 3-year intervals 
instead of annually. Therefore, we have not adopted the recommendation.

27. Sec.  195.432 Breakout Tanks

    Recommendation. Require tank inspection according to API 653.
    Response. Section 195.432 has been amended to require tank 
inspection according to Section 4 of API 653 (64 FR 15936; April 2, 
1999).

28. Sec.  195.434 Signs

    Recommendation. Clarify that the emergency telephone number on 
signs at pump station and breakout tank areas is a number where the 
operator is always available.
    Response. Section 195.434 requires that publicly visible signs 
around each pump station and breakout tank area display ``the name of 
the operator and an emergency telephone number to contact.'' 
Undoubtedly the purpose of the number is to enable the public to notify 
the operator of an emergency involving the area. However, NAPSR 
reported that in many instances the number could not always be used for 
that purpose because it did not reach the operator at all times. We 
agree that clarification would be helpful, particularly since a similar 
requirement governing line marking signs specifically states that the 
telephone number must be one ``where the operator can be reached at all 
times'' (Sec.  195.410(a)(2)(ii)). Therefore, we are proposing to 
change Sec.  195.434 to make the telephone number requirement 
consistent with a similar requirement under Sec.  195.410(a)(2)(ii).

29. Sec.  195.438 Smoking or Open Flame

    Recommendation. Require operators to post ``no smoking'' signs in 
certain locations in pump station and breakout tank areas.
    Response. Section 195.438 requires operators to prohibit smoking in 
certain locations in pump station and breakout tank areas. While some 
operators may comply by posting signs in those locations, others may 
comply by prohibiting smoking throughout the entire area or by limiting 
smoking to a designated location. NAPSR's recommendation would narrow 
the range of possible compliance options for no reason other than ``no 
smoking'' signs are not mandatory under Sec.  195.428. We are not aware 
of any fires caused by smoking in pump station and breakout tank areas 
that might warrant rulemaking action. Also the efficacy of signs in 
preventing smoking in pump station and breakout tank areas was not 
discussed and may be uncertain. Thus, we have not adopted the 
recommendation.

30. Sec.  195.440 Public Education

    Recommendation. Require an annual review of programs designed to 
educate the public to recognize and report hazards and emergencies.
    Response. Section 195.402(c)(3) requires each operator to have and 
follow procedures for carrying out the operation and maintenance 
requirements of Part 195, including the requirements for public 
education under Sec.  195.440. Moreover, Sec.  195.402(a) requires 
operators to review their procedures annually and modify them if 
necessary for effectiveness. We believe these existing requirements 
satisfy NAPSR's recommendation regarding

[[Page 56975]]

annual reviews of public education programs.
    NAPSR's recommendation closely parallels the National 
Transportation Safety Board's recommendation (P-98-38) that operators 
periodically evaluate the effectiveness of their public education 
programs using scientific techniques. In response to that 
recommendation, we are working with the Common Ground Alliance to 
develop guidelines operators may use in evaluating the effectiveness of 
their public education programs. In addition, we are working with 
industry trade associations to develop consensus standards that 
operators can use to improve their public education programs. To this 
end, we invited the public to participate in this voluntary standards-
setting effort (67 FR 34754; May 15, 2002). Upon completion of these 
activities, we will decide if regulatory changes are needed regarding 
public education programs.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures. RSPA does 
not consider this proposed rulemaking to be a significant regulatory 
action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; Oct. 
4, 1993). Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not 
received a copy of this rulemaking to review. RSPA also does not 
consider this proposed rulemaking to be significant under DOT 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).
    We prepared a Draft Regulatory Evaluation of the proposed rules and 
a copy is in the docket. The evaluation concludes there should be only 
minimal additional cost, if any, for operators to comply with the 
proposed rules. If you disagree with this conclusion, please provide 
information to the public docket described above.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed rules are consistent with 
customary practices in the hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline 
industry. Therefore, based on the facts available about the anticipated 
impacts of this proposed rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to Section 605 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this proposed 
rulemaking would not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. If you have any information that this conclusion 
about the impact on small entities is not correct, please provide that 
information to the public docket described above.
    Executive Order 13084. The proposed rules have been analyzed in 
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 13084, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments.'' Because the proposed rules would not significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and 
would not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and 
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline 
Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting Requirements. OMB Number: 2137-
0047
    Summary: Section 195.310(b)(10) proposes minor additional 
information collection requirements to an already existing information 
collection requirement. Operators would be required to record the 
temperature during testing and keep the records for as long as the 
pipeline concerned is in service. However, we believe most operators 
already maintain records of temperature. Also, we believe the burden of 
retaining temperature records would be minimal. These records are 
largely computerized. Maintaining these records on a floppy disk or 
computer file represents very minimal costs. Because the additional 
paperwork burdens of this proposed rule are likely to be minimal, we 
believe that submitting an analysis of the burdens to OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act is unnecessary. If you disagree with this 
conclusion, please submit your comments to the public docket.
    Use: Records are kept to help RSPA determine compliance with 
pipeline safety requirements.
    Respondents (including the number of): There are 200 hazardous 
liquid pipeline operators that could potentially be subject to this 
proposed rule.
    Annual Burden Estimate: 51,011 hours per year.
    Frequency: Variable.
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This proposed rulemaking 
would not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995. It would 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 would be the least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objective of the rule.
    National Environmental Policy Act. We have analyzed the proposed 
rules for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.). Because the proposed rules parallel present requirements 
or practices, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed rules 
would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An 
environmental assessment document is available for review in the 
docket. A final determination on environmental impact will be made 
after the end of the comment period. If you disagree with our 
preliminary conclusion, please submit your comments to the docket as 
described above.
    Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems. 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 ``Y2K'' or related computer problems. The 
proposed rules would not mandate business process changes or require 
modifications to computer systems. Because the proposed rules would not 
affect the ability of organizations to respond to those problems, we 
are not proposing to delay the effectiveness of the requirements.
    Executive Order 13132. The proposed rules have been analyzed in 
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 13132 (``Federalism''). The proposed rules do not propose 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 State 
and local governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the 
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not 
apply.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

    Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, RSPA proposes to amend 
49 CFR part 195 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.  195.222 as follows:
    a. Redesignate the existing text as paragraph (a); and
    b. Add paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  195.222  Welders: Qualification of welders.

* * * * *
    (b) No welder may weld with a particular welding process unless,

[[Page 56976]]

within the preceding 6 calendar months, the welder has--
    (1) Engaged in welding with that process; and
    (2) Had one weld tested and found acceptable under Section 6 of API 
1104.
    3. Revise Sec.  195.252 to read as follows:


Sec.  195.252  Backfilling.

    When a ditch for a pipeline is backfilled, it must be backfilled in 
a manner that:
    (a) Provides firm support under the pipe; and
    (b) Prevents damage to the pipe and pipe coating from equipment or 
from the backfill material.
    4. Amend Sec.  195.310 as follows:
    a. Remove the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(8);
    b. Remove the period at the end of paragraph (b)(9) and add ``; 
and'' in its place; and
    c. Add paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  195.310  Records.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) Temperature of the test medium or pipe during the test period.
    5. Revise Sec.  195.403(a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  195.403  Training.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Learn the potential causes, types, sizes, and consequences of 
fire and the appropriate use of portable fire extinguishers and other 
on-site fire control equipment, involving, where feasible, a simulated 
pipeline emergency condition.
* * * * *
    6. Revise Sec.  195.434 to read as follows:


Sec.  195.434  Signs.

    Each operator must maintain signs visible to the public around each 
pumping station and breakout tank area. Each sign must contain the name 
of the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the 
operator can be reached at all times.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 29, 2002.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 02-22735 Filed 9-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P