[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69368-69373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket Number RSPA-97-3001]
RIN 2137-AC54


Pipeline Safety: Periodic Underwater Inspections

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the pipeline safety regulations 
to require operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to have 
procedures for periodic inspections of pipeline facilities in offshore 
waters less than 15 feet deep or crossing under a navigable waterway. 
These inspections would ensure that the pipeline is not exposed or a 
hazard to navigation.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by 
February 10, 2004. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent 
practicable.

ADDRESSES:

Filing Information

    You may submit written comments by mail or delivery to the Dockets 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. It is open from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All written 
comments should identify the docket and notice numbers stated in the 
heading of this notice. Anyone desiring confirmation of mailed comments 
must include a self-addressed stamped postcard.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; pages 19477-78), or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

Electronic Access

    You may also submit written comments to the docket electronically. 
To submit comments electronically, log onto the following Internet Web 
address: http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' for 
instructions on how to file a document electronically.

General Information

    You may contact the Dockets Facility by phone at (202) 366-9329, 
for copies of this proposed rule or other material in the docket. All 
materials in this docket may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.E. Herrick by phone at (202) 366-
5523, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by e-mail at 
[email protected], regarding the subject matter of this proposed 
rule. General information about RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 
programs may be obtained by accessing OPS's Internet page at http://ops.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

RSPA/OPS Pipeline Safety Mission

    RSPA/OPS has responsibility for ensuring safety and environmental 
protection against risks posed by the nation's approximately two 
million miles of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. RSPA/OPS shares 
responsibility for inspecting and overseeing the nation's pipelines 
with State pipeline safety offices.

The Need for Periodic Underwater Inspections

    On July 24, 1987, the fishing vessel Sea Chief struck and ruptured 
an 8 inch submerged natural gas liquids pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. 
The escaping gas ignited and exploded, killing two crew members. A 
similar accident occurred on October 3, 1989, when the fishing vessel 
Northumberland struck and ruptured a 16 inch submerged gas pipeline, 
killing 11 crew members.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) investigated the 
Northumberland accident and found that the probable cause of the 
accident was the failure of the pipeline operator to maintain the 
pipeline at the burial depth to which it was initially installed. NTSB 
also found that the failure of RSPA/OPS to require pipeline operators 
to inspect and maintain submerged pipelines in a protected condition 
contributed to the accident. The NTSB subsequently issued Safety 
Recommendation P-90-29, which directed RSPA/OPS to ``develop and 
implement with the assistance of the Mineral Management Service (MMS), 
the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the United States Army Corp 
of Engineers (USACE), effective methods and requirements to bury, 
protect, inspect the burial depth of and maintain all submerged 
pipelines in areas subject to damage by surface vessels and their 
operations.''

Joint Task Force Report on Offshore Pipelines

    In response to this recommendation a multi-agency task force on 
offshore pipelines was formed to study the issue. The task force 
consisted of representatives from RSPA/OPS, USCG, Department of the 
Interior, MMS, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration/National Oceans Service, Department of Defense/USACE, 
Louisiana Office of Conservation, and the Texas Railroad Commission.
    The task force reviewed information, views, and concerns provided 
by the government and the marine and pipeline industries. The 
assessment focused on the extent and adequacy of federal regulations, 
the technology for determining pipeline location and cover, the extent 
and availability of maps and charts depicting the location of 
pipelines, and possible government initiatives to enhance safety.
    The task force concluded that exposed pipelines pose a potential 
risk to navigation safety, especially for mariners operating in the 
shallow, near-shore waters. The task force also

[[Page 69369]]

concluded that underwater inspections for depth of burial of those 
pipelines were not being performed despite a requirement to place 
pipelines below the sea floor in shallow water. To reduce the 
likelihood of further casualties, the task force recommended that 
operators inspect these pipelines at regular intervals and rebury 
exposed pipelines.
    The task force further concluded that safety problems with 
submerged pipelines are not confined to the offshore areas of the Gulf 
of Mexico. Although the Gulf contains many submerged pipelines and has 
sea bottoms most prone to erosion, pipelines under a river, shipping 
channel, or other body of water are also susceptible to being exposed 
and damaged or ruptured by a vessel. The task force recommended 
periodic depth of burial inspections for all submerged pipelines that 
could pose a hazard to navigation. A copy of the report is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.

Legislative Amendments

    In November 1990, Congress addressed this safety issue in 
amendments to the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 and the 
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 101-599). These 
amendments, in part, required the operators of offshore pipeline 
facilities in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets to conduct an 
underwater depth-of-burial inspection of the pipeline facility and to 
report any exposed portion or any portion of the pipeline facility 
which posed a hazard to navigation to the Secretary of Transportation. 
The 1990 amendments also required the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish a mandatory, systematic, and, where appropriate, periodic 
pipeline inspection and reburial program for all shallow water 
submerged pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets.
    On December 5, 1991, RSPA/OPS published regulations requiring 
underwater inspections (56 FR 63764). Over 1,560 miles of pipeline in 
the Gulf of Mexico were inspected. Approximately 25 miles, less than 
two percent of the inspected pipeline was reported to be exposed or to 
be a hazard to navigation. In 1992, Congress expanded the requirement 
to include all offshore pipelines, (including over 600 miles of 
pipelines off California and Alaska), underwater abandoned pipeline 
facilities, and all other pipeline facilities which cross under, over, 
or through navigable waters, if the location could pose a hazard to 
navigation (Pub. L. 102-508).

National Research Council Report

    To gain a perspective on risks to be addressed by the 
Congressionally mandated inspections, RSPA/OPS, in conjunction with 
other Federal agencies, requested that the Marine Board of the National 
Research Council conduct an interdisciplinary review and assessment of 
the many technical, regulatory, and jurisdictional issues that affect 
the safety of the marine pipelines in the United States' offshore 
waters. The Committee on the Safety of Marine Pipelines reviewed the 
causes of past pipeline failures, the potential for future failures, 
and the means of preventing or mitigating these failures. In 1994, the 
Marine Board issued a report, Improving the Safety of Marine Pipelines. 
A copy of this report is available for review in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    The committee determined that the marine pipeline network does not 
present an extraordinary threat to human life. Pipeline accidents 
involving deaths or injuries are rare. The most widespread risks are 
due to oil pollution, mainly from pipelines damaged by vessels and 
their gear. The report noted that ``[d]amage from vessels (and 
especially from anchors and groundings) is dramatically more 
significant than corrosion as a source of pollution. Ninety-five 
percent of the pipeline related pollution on the Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS) was due to such incidents. Anchor damage alone accounted 
for 90 percent of the pipeline related pollution.'' The committee 
concluded that the risks generally could be managed with currently 
available technology and without major new regulations if enforcement 
of some current regulations is improved. Better coordination among 
operators and regulators in gathering safety data, assessing risks, and 
planning and implementing risk management programs was cited as a 
fundamental safety requirement. The committee noted that ``[i]n shallow 
water the best protection against the interference of vessels and 
pipelines, generally, is burial of the pipelines, with enough weight 
coating to keep it in place * * * [a]chieving and maintaining adequate 
burial requires care and vigilance.'' The committee recommended that 
operators inspect the depth of burial of underwater pipelines at 
intervals determined by analysis of the probabilities of risks. A 
detailed approach is outlined in the report.
    High risk areas are zones of high density of pipelines; high 
density of vessel traffic; shallow waters; the immediate vicinity of 
platforms; areas of severe erosion or shift of the sea floor and high 
potential for flooding; and areas affected by hurricanes or severe 
storms. According to the Marine Board Report, surveys of pipelines 
could be scheduled in accordance with the relatively predictable 
behavior of sediment and shoreline erosion. Surveys could also be 
performed after the passage of major storms.
    The Marine Board report identified the characteristics of the Gulf 
of Mexico shoreline and seabed dynamics and identified the pipeline 
safety issues and inspection needs associated with those dynamics as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Region                        Shoreline                  Seabed           Pipeline safety issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondeltaic...........................  Localized retreat......  Stable.................  Occasional exposure at
                                                                                          shoreline deposition
                                                                                          on seabed.
Chenier plain........................  Rapid and generalized    Very dynamic top layer   Storm-induced cover
                                        retreat.                 of unconsolidated muds.  loss; gradual cover
                                                                                          loss.
Barrier Islands......................  Active dynamics          Rapid to gradual         Rapidly changing
                                        primarily on the         generalized siltation;   shorelines and island/
                                        island and shoals.       localized erosion and    shoal crossing; storm-
                                                                 seabed shifting.         induced changes.
River mouth..........................  Very rapid change; some  Slumping...............  Storm induced slides.
                                        retreat, some advance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Depth of Cover inspection needs for different shorelines and seabed 
regimes:

[[Page 69370]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Without occurrence  With occurrence of
             Region                    of storm              storm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondeltaic......................  Periodic            Post storm
                                   monitoring of       inspection of
                                   shoreline           shoreline
                                   crossing.           crossing, if
                                   Monitored           shoreline
                                   visually with       changes, then
                                   biweekly route      investigate near
                                   survey, but no      shore depth-of-
                                   less frequently     cover. Post storm
                                   than every three    inspection of
                                   months.             depth-of-cover is
                                                       not necessary.
Chenier plain and barrier         Periodic            Post storm
 islands.                          monitoring of       inspection of
                                   shoreline           shoreline
                                   crossing.           crossing and
                                   Monitored           depth of cover.
                                   visually with
                                   biweekly route
                                   survey, but no
                                   less frequently
                                   than every three
                                   months. Periodic
                                   inspections of
                                   depth of cover.
                                   If shoreline
                                   changes, then
                                   investigate near
                                   shore depth of
                                   cover.
River mouth.....................  Periodic            Post storm
                                   monitoring of       inspection of
                                   shoreline           shoreline
                                   crossing.           crossing and
                                   Monitored           pipeline (in
                                   visually with       mudslide areas
                                   biweekly route      only).
                                   survey, but no
                                   less frequently
                                   than every three
                                   months. If
                                   shoreline
                                   changes, then
                                   investigate near
                                   shore depth of
                                   cover. Periodic
                                   inspection of
                                   depth of cover is
                                   not necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Pipeline Burial Surveys in the Gulf of Mexico.

    In June 1997, a comprehensive study was completed by the Texas 
Transportation Institute to determine the need for inspections of 
pipeline burial depth in the Gulf of Mexico for pipelines subject to 
federal pipeline safety regulation. The study made several 
recommendations addressing administrative, depth of cover, and survey 
requirements. Comments on these recommendations are invited. A copy of 
the study is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The study recommended that natural gas and hazardous liquid 
pipelines be regulated identically under the periodic depth of burial 
inspection regulation because the higher risk to persons or property 
posed by natural gas pipeline facilities is balanced by the higher risk 
to the environment posed by hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. The 
study further recommended that all pipeline facilities in waters less 
than 15 feet deep should be maintained 3 feet below the natural bottom 
and that the natural bottom should be defined in order to establish a 
reference point for measurement in the very soft, silty bottoms.
    A risk based analysis model for the pipeline burial inspections is 
included as an appendix to the document.

Proposed Requirements

    RSPA/OPS proposes that owners and operators of these underwater 
pipeline facilities be required to develop procedures to conduct 
periodic underwater depth of burial inspections of their submerged 
pipelines. The procedures would assess the risk of a pipeline becoming 
exposed or a hazard to navigation by taking into account the particular 
dynamics of the water bottom, including the probability of flotation, 
scour, erosion, and the impacts of major storms. The operator should 
also establish a timetable for inspection of underwater pipelines based 
on their risks.

II. Comments Requested

    RSPA/OPS requests comments from industry and the public on the 
following topics:

A. Performance Versus Prescriptive

    Pipelines found exposed by inspections conducted under the initial 
inspection program ranged in age from 10 years to 46 years. They were 
in areas that experienced a variety of erosion levels and storms. 
Analysis of this information was not persuasive in eliminating any of 
the potentially affected pipeline from an underwater inspection 
requirement.
    This proposed rulemaking is performance based. It would require an 
operator to determine the optimal inspection intervals for each of 
their pipeline facilities. A directionally bored crossing 25 feet 
beneath a stable river would have dramatically different inspection 
requirements than a pipeline in a soft, silty bottom prone to erosion 
or tidal scour.
    A prescriptive requirement would mandate a specific inspection 
interval and protocol. These intervals would be the maximum allowable. 
Inspections would also be required following a major storm, earthquake, 
or period of increased or substantial erosion. Comments are solicited 
on the relative merits of these approaches.

B. Hazard to Navigation

    Under the current regulations for offshore inspections in the Gulf 
of Mexico, ``Navigational Hazard'' is defined as a pipeline that is 
buried less than 12 inches below the sea bed in waters less than 15 
feet deep, as measured from the mean low water (49 CFR 195.2). This 
proposed rule would increase the cover requirement to 24 inches and 
revise the definition to include inland navigable waterways. The 
increased depth of cover requirement is necessary because a vessel's 
hull or anchor can easily penetrate below 12 inches, especially in 
soft, silty bottoms.
    Current regulations currently in effect for hazardous liquid 
pipelines require a burial depth of 48 inches for normal excavations or 
24 inches in rock for deepwater port safety zones; 36 inches for normal 
excavation or 18 inches in rock for all other offshore areas underwater 
less than 12 feet deep as measured from the mean low tide; and 48 
inches for normal excavation or 18 inches in rock for all crossings of 
inland bodies of water with a width of at least 100 feet from high 
water mark to high water mark (49 CFR 195.248).

C. Navigable Waters

    The phrase ``Navigable waters of the United States'' (33 CFR 329.4) 
describes the Federal jurisdiction and can include water where there is 
little likelihood that vessels could be damaged by pipelines. Under 
this proposed rule, the affected navigable waterways are those 
waterways with a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation.
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Vanderbilt University have 
created a geographic database of navigable waterways in and around the 
United States. The database, called the National Waterways Network, was 
created with input from the National Waterway GIS Design Committee, 
which is composed of representatives of the USACE, DOT's Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics (BTS), Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center; Maritime Administration; Military Traffic Management Command; 
Tennessee Valley Authority; U.S. Environmental

[[Page 69371]]

Protection Agency; U.S. Census Bureau; USCG; and DOT's Federal Railroad 
Administration. The database includes commercially navigable waterways 
and non-commercially navigable waterways. The database can be 
downloaded from BTS' Web site at http://www.bts.gov/gis/ntatlas/networks.html. Pipeline operators will be able to determine which areas 
of their pipeline intersect these designated commercially navigable 
waterways.

D. Reporting Requirements

    The Act requires the Secretary to establish requirements for the 
operators to report potential or existing navigational hazards to the 
Secretary of Transportation through the appropriate USCG office. 
Current regulations at 49 CFR 192.612 and 195.413 on depth of burial 
inspection and reburial programs require pipeline operators to report 
to the USCG Regional Response Center the location of any hazard to 
navigation within 24 hours of discovery. The operator is also required 
to file a project report with RSPA/OPS within 60 days after the 
completion of the inspection. This proposed rule would maintain these 
requirements. Comments are specifically requested regarding the burden 
this reporting requirement may place upon operators.

E. Marking Exposed Pipelines Pending their Reburial

    The Act specifies that ``[t]he operator shall mark the location of 
the hazardous part with a Coast Guard approved marine buoy or marker.'' 
This proposed rule would maintain the depth of burial inspection and 
reburial program required by 49 CFR 192.612 and 195.413. The location 
of the reported hazard to navigation would be marked with USCG approved 
markers, placed at the ends of the pipeline segment and at intervals of 
not over 500 yards, except that a pipeline segment of less than 200 
yards need only be marked at the center.

F. Reburial Requirements

    MMS issues rights-of-way permits for pipelines on the OCS and 
requires that all newly constructed pipelines be buried to a depth of 
36 inches in water less than 200 feet (30 CFR 250.153). OPS 
construction standards require that all newly constructed gas and 
hazardous liquid pipelines in offshore waters less than 12 feet deep 
must have a minimum of 36 inches of cover or 18 inches of cover in 
consolidated rock. Newly constructed gas and hazardous liquid pipeline 
in offshore waters from 12 feet to 200 feet deep must be installed so 
that the top of the pipeline is below the sea bed (49 CFR 192.327, 
192.248, 192.319, and 192.246). This proposed rule would require that 
the exposed pipelines or pipelines which are a hazard to navigation be 
reburied to meet these requirements.

G. Abandoned Pipelines

    The Act mandated that ``pipeline facility'' include underwater 
abandoned pipeline facilities and that if the abandoned facility had no 
operator, then the most recent operator of the facility was to be 
deemed the operator of the facility. On September 8, 2000, OPS issued a 
final rule requiring the last operator of an abandoned pipeline, 
offshore or crossing under, over, or through commercially navigable 
waterways, to submit a report of the abandonment to the Secretary of 
Transportation. Because it does not appear that these abandoned lines 
pose a hazard to navigation, this proposal would not apply to abandoned 
lines. Information collected under 49 CFR 192.727 and 195.59 will be 
considered to assess the danger posed by abandoned lines. Any 
requirements found to be necessary for abandon lines will be considered 
in a separate rulemaking.

H. Exposed Pipeline

    Under current regulations in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195, ``Exposed 
pipeline'' means a pipeline where the top of the pipe is protruding 
above the seabed in water less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep, as 
measured from the mean low water level. This proposed rule would revise 
that definition to read ``exposed underwater pipeline'' to clarify that 
a pipeline can also be exposed onshore.

I. Gulf of Mexico and Its Inlets

    Under current regulations ``Gulf of Mexico and its inlets'' means 
the waters from the mean high water mark on the coast of the Gulf of 
Mexico and its inlets open to the sea (excluding rivers, tidal marshes, 
lakes, and canals) seaward to include the territorial sea and OCS to a 
depth of 15 feet (4.6 meters), as measured from the mean low water 
level. This proposed rule would amend this definition to acknowledge 
that the Gulf of Mexico extends beyond a depth of 15 feet.

J. Underwater Natural Bottom

    The Marine Board of the National Research Council recommended that 
the underwater natural bottom be defined to reduce confusion regarding 
the reference point for measuring cover. This proposed rule would 
establish this point as the surface which reflects a 50 kHz fathometer 
signal.

III. Advisory Committees

    The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
is a Federal advisory committee established under section 204 of the 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1974 (HLPSA) (49 App. U.S.C. 
2003). The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee is a Federal 
advisory committee established under section 4 of the Natural Gas 
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA). These committees advise DOT on the 
feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of standards imposed 
under HLPSA and NGPSA. RSPA/OPS will submit this proposal to the 
advisory committees and report on their recommendations prior to the 
issuance of a final rule.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    A copy of the Paperwork Reduction Analysis for this proposal has 
been put in the public docket for this rule. The following is a summary 
of the highlights of this analysis. Approximately 125 pipeline 
operators are potentially subject to this new requirement. It will take 
approximately 500 hours to develop and implement a program to determine 
the need for periodic inspection. The total industry time to develop 
this program is 62,500 hours.
    Comments are invited on: (a) The need for the proposed collection 
of information for the proper performance of the functions of the 
agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; 
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed 
collection of information including the validity of the methodology and 
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity 
of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other 
technological collection techniques.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    A regulatory evaluation for this proposed rule has been prepared 
and placed in the public docket for review and comment. Below is a 
summary of the findings of the regulatory evaluation. This proposed 
rule is a response to Congressional requirements that pipelines 
offshore and that cross under navigable waterways be periodically 
inspected and reburied if it is exposed or a hazard to navigation. The 
Congressional requirements come

[[Page 69372]]

in response to two accidents in 1980 in which fishing vessels hit 
underwater pipelines, resulting in multiple fatalities.
    Approximately 125 companies operate underwater pipelines offshore 
and in navigable waterways. Under this proposal, each of these 
companies will be required to have formal written procedures for 
periodically inspecting their underwater pipeline facilities in waters 
less than 15 feet of depth.
    A survey conducted by RSPA/OPS in 1992 determined that less than 
two percent of all underwater pipeline in waters of less than 15 feet 
were exposed or a hazard to navigation. Based on the above, RSPA/OPS 
believes that at most 10% of the affected underwater pipeline may need 
to be reinspected periodically. RSPA/OPS estimates that the initial 
cost of this proposal is $6.25 million with annual reinspection costs 
of approximately $200,000 per year. More details of the costs and 
benefits of this proposed rule can be found in the public docket.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this 
rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Few small entities operate pipelines subject to this proposed rule.

D. Environmental Assessment

    A preliminary draft Environmental Assessment was conducted and is 
available in the docket. The inspection and reburial of the pipelines 
should not have a significant impact on the environment. Previous 
inspections of underwater pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico found less 
than two percent of the affected pipelines required reburial. This 
proposal only considers pipelines in less than 15 feet of water 
offshore and pipelines in navigable waterways. Because very little 
pipeline will actually require reburial this proposal will not have a 
significant impact on the human environment. If you disagree with the 
preliminary draft environmental assessment please submit your comments 
to the public docket.

E. Executive Order 12612--Federalism

    RSPA/OPS has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685). RSPA/OPS 
has determined that the action does not have substantial direct effects 
on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. Therefore this rulemaking does not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
federalism assessment.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 192

    Administrative practice and procedure, Gas, Natural gas, Pipeline 
safety, Reports, Transportation.

49 CFR Part 195

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous liquid, Oil, 
Petroleum, Pipeline safety reports, Transportation.
    In consideration of the foregoing, OPS proposes to amend parts 192 
and 195 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: 
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 192 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60117, 
60118, 60124; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 192.3 would be amended by removing the definition of 
``exposed pipeline''; revising the definitions of ``Gulf of Mexico and 
its inlets'' and ``Hazard to navigation''; and adding definitions for 
``exposed underwater pipeline'' and ``underwater natural bottom'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  192.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Exposed underwater pipeline means an underwater pipeline where the 
top of the pipe protrudes above the bottom.
* * * * *
    Gulf of Mexico and its inlets means the waters from the mean high 
water mark of the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets open to 
the sea (excluding rivers, tidal marshes, lakes, and canals) seaward to 
include the territorial sea and OCS.
    Hazard to navigation means for the purpose of this part, a pipeline 
where the top of the pipe is less than 24 inches (610 millimeters) 
below the seabed in water less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep, as 
measured from the mean low water level.
* * * * *
    Underwater natural bottom means a surface that reflects a 50 kHz 
fathometer signal.
    3. Section 192.612 would be amended by revising paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  192.612  Underwater inspection and reburial of pipelines.

    (a) Each operator shall prepare and follow a procedure to conduct 
periodic underwater inspections of its offshore pipeline facilities and 
those crossing under navigable waterways in waters less than 15 feet 
deep to ensure that the pipeline is not exposed or a hazard to 
navigation. The procedures must be in effect one year from the 
publication date of the Final Rule.
* * * * *

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

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

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

    2. Section 195.2 would be amended by removing the definition of 
``exposed pipeline''; revising the definitions of ``Gulf of Mexico and 
its inlets''; and ``hazard to navigation''; and adding definitions for 
``exposed underwater pipeline'' and ``underwater natural bottom'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  195.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Exposed underwater pipeline means an underwater pipeline where the 
top of the pipe protrudes above the bottom.
    Gulf of Mexico and its inlets means the waters from the mean high 
water mark of the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets open to 
the sea (excluding rivers, tidal marshes, lakes, and canals) seaward to 
include the territorial sea and the OCS.
    Hazard to navigation means for the purpose of this part, a pipeline 
where the top of the pipe is less than 24 inches (610 millimeters) 
below the seabed in water less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep, as 
measured from the mean low water level.
* * * * *
    Underwater natural bottom means the surface that reflects a 50 kHz 
fathometer signal.
    3. Section 195.413 would be amended by revising paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  195.413  Underwater inspection and reburial of pipelines.

    (a) Except for gathering lines of 4\1/2\-inch (114 mm) nominal 
outside diameter or smaller, each operator shall prepare and follow a 
procedure to conduct periodic underwater inspections of its offshore 
pipeline facilities and those crossing under navigable waterways in 
waters less than 15 feet deep to ensure that the pipeline is not 
exposed or a hazard to navigation.

[[Page 69373]]

The procedures must be in effect one year from the publication date of 
the Final Rule.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2003.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 03-30655 Filed 12-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P