[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53526-53528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. RSPA-97-2717; Amdt. 195-78]
RIN 2137-AD10


Pipeline Safety: Recommendations To Change Hazardous Liquid 
Pipeline Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) 
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is changing several safety standards 
for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. The changes, which 
concern welder qualifications, backfilling, records, training, and 
signs, are based on recommendations by the National Association of 
Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR). RSPA/OPS believes the changes 
will improve the clarity and effectiveness of the present standards.

DATES: This Final Rule takes effect October 14, 2003.

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:

Background

    NAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from state agencies 
that participate with RSPA/OPS in the Federal pipeline safety 
regulatory program. RSPA/OPS asked NAPSR to review the hazardous liquid 
pipeline safety standards in 49 CFR part 195 and recommend any changes 
needed to make the standards more explicit, understandable, and 
enforceable. NAPSR compiled the results of its review in a report 
titled ``Part 195 Project.''
    The report includes 30 different recommendations for changes to 
Part 195, of which RSPA/OPS has adopted or proposed to adopt 18 in 
earlier rulemaking actions. In the Federal Register of September 6, 
2002, RSPA/OPS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 
which RSPA/OPS proposed to adopt five more recommendations (67 FR 
56970). The NPRM also described the earlier actions and explained why 
RSPA/OPS had declined to adopt seven recommendations.

Disposition of Comments

    This section of the preamble summarizes the written comments RSPA/
OPS received in response to the NPRM. It also describes how RSPA/OPS 
treated those comments in developing this Final Rule. If a proposed 
section is not mentioned, no significant comments were received on that 
section and RSPA/OPS is adopting it as final.
    RSPA/OPS invited the public to comment by November 5, 2002, on 
proposed changes to five sections in Part 195: Sec.  195.222, Welders: 
Qualification of welders; Sec.  195.252, Backfilling; Sec.  195.310, 
Records; Sec.  195.403, Training; and Sec.  195.434, Signs. The only 
comments RSPA/OPS received were from the Florida Department of 
Transportation ( FDOT) and the Washington Utilities and Transportation 
Commission (WUTC).
    FDOT was concerned that part 195 could be construed to supersede 
its more stringent requirements on backfilling and abandonment. For 
example, FDOT said it does not allow abandonment of utility facilities, 
whereas Sec.  195.402(c)(10) permits operators to abandon pipelines 
under appropriate procedures. FDOT recommended that RSPA/OPS state in 
Part 195 that the part does not supersede state requirements unless 
those requirements are less stringent.
    RSPA/OPS has not added this statement to part 195 because it may 
not be in accord with the preemption provisions of Federal pipeline 
safety law (49 U.S.C. 60104(c)). Those provisions prohibit state 
agencies from establishing any safety standards for interstate pipeline 
facilities. And although state agencies that meet certain requirements 
may establish additional or more stringent safety standards for 
intrastate pipeline facilities, the state standards must be compatible 
with the federal safety standards. The preemption provisions do not 
allow state agencies to establish less stringent safety standards for 
intrastate pipeline facilities. To say that Part 195 does not supersede 
state requirements unless they are less stringent would incorrectly 
imply that states may have safety standards for interstate pipeline 
facilities or may have less stringent standards for intrastate pipeline 
facilities. In addition, such a statement would incorrectly imply that 
Part 195 does not supersede a state agency's more stringent intrastate 
standards that are incompatible with Part 195.
    Having said this, RSPA/OPS does not want to leave the impression 
that it considers FDOT's more stringent requirements on backfilling and 
abandonment to be inoperative in view of the Federal preemption 
provisions. As RSPA/OPS construes those provisions, they apply only to 
generally applicable state safety standards. They do not apply to 
safety requirements that a state or local agency may attach to specific 
construction permits as a condition of exercising the permit. It is in 
this vein that RSPA/OPS believes FDOT applies its more stringent 
requirements.
    WUTC generally supported the NPRM, but made specific comments on 
the backfilling standard proposed in Sec.  195.252. RSPA/OPS proposed 
that backfilling must provide firm support under the pipe and prevent 
damage to the pipe and pipe coating from equipment and backfill 
material. As explained in the NPRM, RSPA/OPS did not propose to adopt 
NAPSR's recommendation that backfill material

[[Page 53527]]

not contain objects that could damage the pipe or pipe coating. RSPA/
OPS reasoned that such material may not always be available near 
construction sites, and under the proposed standard, material with such 
objects could only be used if damage is prevented by means such as a 
sufficient initial layer of material that is free of potentially 
damaging rocks. Nevertheless, WUTC was concerned that operators could 
still use large rocks that could later cause damage to the pipe. WUTC 
suggested that backfill material not contain either rocks larger than 
six inches or organic material, such as wood, that may decay and cause 
subsidence or erosion.
    WUTC is correct that the proposed standard would not preclude 
operators from using backfill material that contains large rocks. 
However, to do so operators would have to take steps to insure that the 
rocks do not damage the pipeline. RSPA/OPS said in the NPRM that one 
means of protection is an initial layer of rock-free material. WUTC 
implied that this method may not be adequate in the presence of large 
rocks. If so, operators would have to use some other means of 
protection. For example, they could install a durable rock shield 
either by itself or in addition to a layer of rock-free material. 
Because reasonable means are available to protect against rock damage, 
RSPA/OPS does not think a restrictive standard like WUTC suggested is 
necessary for safety. The performance nature of proposed Sec.  195.252 
would also require operators to take protective action if backfill 
material contains enough organic material to cause damage through 
subsequent decay. Therefore, RSPA/OPS has adopted proposed Sec.  
195.252 as final.

Advisory Committee Consideration

    The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
(THLPSSC) considered the NPRM and the associated evaluation of costs 
and benefits at a meeting in Washington, DC on March 25, 2003 (68 FR 
11176; March 7, 2003). The committee is a statutorily mandated advisory 
committee that advises us on proposed safety standards and other 
policies for hazardous liquid pipelines. The committee has an 
authorized membership of 15 persons, five each representing government, 
industry, and the public. Each member is qualified to consider the 
technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and 
practicability of proposed pipeline safety standards. A transcript of 
the meeting as well as other material related to the committee's 
consideration of the NPRM are available in Docket No. RSPA-98-4470.
    At the meeting, the THLPSSC voted on whether the proposed rules are 
technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable, and 
whether the evaluation of costs and benefits is satisfactory. The 
THLPSSC voted unanimously to approve the proposed rules and the 
evaluation.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures. RSPA/OPS 
does not consider this 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/OPS also does not 
consider this rulemaking to be significant under DOT regulatory 
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).
    RSPA/OPS prepared a Regulatory Evaluation of the final 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 
rules. No comments were received on the draft evaluation that 
accompanied the NPRM.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The final 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 
rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13084

    The final 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 rules will not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of the Indian tribal governments and will 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) adds minor information collection 
requirements to an already existing information collection requirement. 
Operators are required to record the temperature during testing and 
keep the records for as long as the pipeline concerned is in service. 
However, RSPA/OPS believes most operators already maintain records of 
temperature. Also, RSPA/OPS believes the burden of retaining 
temperature records is 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 
rule are likely to be minimal, RSPA/OPS believes that submitting an 
analysis of the burdens to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act is 
unnecessary.
    Use: Records are kept to help RSPA/OPS 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 
rule.
    Annual Burden Estimate: 51,011 hours per year.
    Frequency: Variable.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will 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 rulemaking proceeding.

National Environmental Policy Act

    RSPA/OPS has analyzed the final rule for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Because the final 
rule parallels present requirements or practices, RSPA/OPS has 
determined that the rule will not significantly affect the quality of 
the human environment. An environmental assessment document is 
available for review in the docket.

Executive Order 13132

    The final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). The 
rule does not establish 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.

[[Page 53528]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, RSPA/OPS amends 49 CFR part 
195 as follows:

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  195.222 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate the existing text as paragraph (a); and
0
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, 
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.

0
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.

0
4. Amend Sec.  195.310 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(8);
0
b. Remove the period at the end of paragraph (b)(9) and add ``; and'' 
in its place; and
0
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.

0
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.
* * * * *

0
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 September 2, 2003.
Samuel G. Bonasso,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-23180 Filed 9-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P