DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-117; Amdt. 195-53]

RIN 2137-AB86

Transportation of Hazardous Liquids at 20 Percent or Less of

Specified Minimum Yield Strength

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

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: RSPA's hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations do not

apply to steel pipelines that operate at 20 percent or less of

specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). This final rule extends the

regulations to three groups of these pipelines: pipelines that

transport highly volatile liquids, pipelines or pipeline segments in

populated areas, and pipelines or pipeline segments in navigable

waterways. Accidents have shown that regulating these pipelines or

pipeline segments would be in the interest of public safety. Moreover,

the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 provides that DOT may not exclude

hazardous liquid pipelines from regulation based solely on operation at

low internal stress. The final rule responds to this statutory

prohibition and will reduce the risk that hazardous liquid pipelines

present to public safety and the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow, (202) 366-2392, regarding

the subject matter of this final rule. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202)

366-4453, for copies of the final rule or other docket material.

Contact the Transportation Safety Institute, Pipeline Safety Division,

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 680-

4643, for a copy of 49 CFR part 195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

RSPA's hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations do not apply to

pipelines operating at a stress level of 20 percent or less of SMYS

(hereafter ``low-stress pipelines'') (see 49 CFR 195.1(b)(3)). DOT

excluded these pipelines from part 195 when it first issued the

regulations (34 FR 15473; October 4, 1969). However, serious accidents

have occurred on low-stress pipelines, suggesting that this blanket

exclusion is no longer in the interest of public safety. Moreover,

Section 206 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (PSA) (Pub. L. 102-508;

October 24, 1992), amended Sec. 203(b) of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline

Safety Act of 1979 (HLPSA) (49 App. U.S.C. 2002(b)) to provide that

``[i]n exercising any discretion under this Act, the Secretary shall

not provide an exception to regulation under this Act for any pipeline

facility solely on the basis of the fact that such pipeline facility

operates at low internal stress.''

On October 31, 1990, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking on low-stress pipelines (55 FR 45822). The notice described

accidents and rulemaking recommendations.

We analyzed data received in response to that notice to learn the

benefits and costs of regulating low-stress pipelines. The analysis

showed that many operators could face costs disproportionate to

benefits if RSPA regulated all low-stress pipelines subject to the

HLPSA. So we focused on those low-stress pipelines that pose a higher

risk to people and the environment. We identified the commodity in

transportation and the location of the pipeline as significant risk

factors.

RSPA then published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR

12213; March 3, 1993) that addressed these risk factors. The NPRM

proposed to apply the safety standards in part 195 and the drug testing

rules in 49 CFR part 199 to low-stress pipelines that transport highly

volatile liquids (HVL), traverse populated areas, or traverse navigable

waterways. These pipelines were targeted because failures of HVL

pipelines usually result in more deaths and injuries than other

pipeline failures, and failures in populated areas and navigable

waterways generally result in more damages to people and the

environment. Furthermore, the risk of outside force damage, a major

cause of pipeline accidents, is greater in populated areas and

navigable waterways, making failures there somewhat more likely.

The proposed rules would address the statutory restriction (quoted

above) on administrative discretion in regulating hazardous liquid

pipelines. The proposed rules also would respond to the Oil Pollution

Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380), which requires DOT to regulate oil

pipelines to prevent pollution of navigable waters.

The NPRM proposed regulating four kinds of pipelines operating at

20 percent or less of SMYS: gathering lines, trunk lines, inter-

facility lines, and delivery lines. Unaffected were pipelines that part

195 does not cover for a reason besides low operating stress. For

example, the NPRM did not propose regulating low-stress rural gathering

lines. Part 195 does not apply to petroleum gathering lines in rural

areas, regardless of the pipeline's operating stress level (see

Sec. 195.1(b)(4)). Also, with regard to low-stress pipelines that do

not transport HVL, the proposed rules did not affect pipelines or

pipeline segments that lie outside populated areas or navigable

waterways. However, controls or equipment on excepted segments that are

necessary for the safe operation of pipeline segments inside populated

areas or navigable waterways (e.g., pressure controls) would have to

meet part 195 requirements.

II. Response to Comments

A. Introduction

This section of the preamble summarizes and discusses the major

written comments RSPA received on the proposed rules. Comments related

to the draft economic evaluation of costs and benefits are discussed in

the Final Regulatory Evaluation, which is in the docket.

B. Extent and Nature of Comments

The NPRM requested comments by May 3, 1993. RSPA received 13

written comments. The comments came from seven pipeline operators, one

pipeline trade association (the American Petroleum Institute (API)),

three state pipeline safety agencies, one federal agency (the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)), and one public interest

organization (the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)).

NTSB, two state agencies, and one operator voiced general support

for the NPRM. The rest of the commenters directed their remarks to

specific issues. Those issues are discussed below.

C. Rural Pipelines

NRDC and a state agency suggested that RSPA should not continue to

except non-HVL low-stress pipelines in rural areas from part 195. These

commenters argued that people and the environment in rural areas

deserve the same protection as people and the environment in populated

areas. They also said that serious accidents have occurred in rural

areas, and that low stress is not necessarily an indicator of low risk.

Although RSPA appreciates these commenters' concerns, we have

decided not to expand the present rulemaking to include the regulation

of additional low-stress pipelines in rural areas. However, the need to

regulate rural low-stress pipelines not covered by the present

rulemaking will be considered in upcoming proceedings.

Apart from production lines (which are not subject to the HLPSA),

most low-stress pipelines in rural areas probably are gathering lines.

Until passage of the PSA, rural gathering lines were not subject to

regulation under the HLPSA. However, the PSA enlarged RSPA's regulatory

authority under the HLPSA to include, with certain exceptions, those

rural gathering lines that warrant regulation based on location and

other risk factors. As required by Section 208 of the PSA, RSPA will

consider regulation of those lines in a future notice of proposed

rulemaking.

In addition, we will consider the need to regulate rural low-stress

pipelines that are not gathering lines principally on the basis of the

risk the low-stress lines pose to the environment. Through response

planning in cooperation with other federal and state agencies under the

Oil Pollution Act, we are developing a better concept of what

constitutes an environmentally-sensitive area for purposes of pipeline

environmental regulation. This planning should provide the groundwork

both for the future notice of proposed rulemaking on rural gathering

lines and for a rulemaking on other rural low-stress pipelines.

D. Adequacy of NPRM

API commented on the impact of the proposed rules on inter-facility

lines and delivery lines. It said the proposed rules would

significantly affect non-pipeline companies, such as refineries,

petrochemical plants, and terminals. But, according to API, these

companies may not have been aware of the NPRM. API advised RSPA to

publish a separate NPRM directed at inter-facility and delivery lines,

with at least a 6-month comment period.

RSPA does not agree that another rulemaking notice is needed.

The published NPRM clearly discussed the proposed applicability of

part 195 to inter-facility lines and delivery lines. The NPRM gave all

interested persons, including non-pipeline companies, an adequate

opportunity to comment on the proposed extension of part 195 to cover

these low-stress pipelines. In addition, some non-pipeline companies

were aware of the NPRM, because representatives of refineries submitted

comments. Other non-pipeline companies should have been aware that RSPA

was considering the need to regulate low-stress pipelines. As stated

above, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on low-

stress pipelines. Also, we specifically invited representatives of the

chemical, refining, and terminal industries to attend a meeting on low-

stress pipelines (56 FR 23538; May 22, 1991). At that meeting, RSPA

staff described all low-stress pipelines excluded from part 195.

E. Economically Marginal Gathering Lines

The NPRM requested comment on whether economically marginal

gathering lines (i.e., lines which have little profit) in populated

areas should receive separate treatment under the final rules. One

operator wanted to exclude from regulation petroleum gathering lines

that operate at less than 5 percent of SMYS and transport mostly

sediment and water. The operator said these lines present little or no

risk, but the cost of regulation would be high because of the large

number of lines.

API and an operator said many low-stress pipelines in populated

areas are associated with mature wells of diminishing production. These

commenters argued regulation would accelerate the marginal economic

status of the lines. They also suggested that more truck transportation

would follow, with greater risk to the public. The operator

particularly asked RSPA not to regulate low-stress pipelines

transporting crude oil that has a high flash point. These lines, the

commenter said, do not present a high enough risk to public safety to

make regulation cost/effective.

API commented that RSPA should apply just a few regulations to

pipelines made economically marginal by depleted oil fields and low oil

prices. It suggested that regulations applicable to leak detection

would be enough. The remaining regulations could be waived, API said,

based on evidence of negative economic impact and low risk to the area.

An operator also suggested RSPA consider granting waivers for marginal

systems based on evidence of a satisfactory safety program.

NTSB said regulation of a class of pipelines should be based solely

on the threat to public safety and the environment.

An operator of economically marginal lines said that if safety is

the goal of regulation, then profitable and marginal lines should be

treated alike.

To resolve the issue of economically marginal gathering lines, we

looked at the number of lines involved, the burden of the final rule,

and alternative transportation. The record shows that gathering lines

in populated areas comprise less than 10 percent of low-stress

pipelines subject to the final rule. Based on the comments, we believe

only a small fraction of this number is economically marginal,

transporting small volumes of oil from older, declining wells. These

pipelines would be subject to the part 195 regulations, which, on the

whole, parallel the industry standards in the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers' B31.4 code, Liquid Transportation Systems for

Hydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols.

The compliance burden, therefore, would be similar to the burden of

meeting the minimum standards the pipeline industry has set for itself.

Alternative rail or truck transportation, although perhaps more

expensive, is generally available to replace any gathering line

transportation that might be shut down. Thus, we do not believe

regulation of economically marginal low-stress gathering lines will

cause a significant hardship to much of the industry. Also, the

potential safety and environmental risks of economically marginal

gathering lines is probably higher than that of more profitable lines

because of the increased incentive to save costs. Consequently, we

decided not to include special provisions in part 195 for economically

marginal low-stress gathering lines.

Nevertheless, consistent with API's comment and RSPA's statutory

authority, we will consider requests for waiver of particular

requirements. Any request should be based on evidence of significantly

adverse economic impact, low risk, and adequate operation and

maintenance practices.

F. Compliance Time

1. Amount of Time

Proposed Sec. 195.1(d) would have allowed operators of existing

low-stress pipelines 1 year after publication of the final rule to

comply with parts 195 and 199. However, the NPRM requested comment on

whether 1 year would be enough time to prepare existing pipelines for

compliance.

An operator said 1 year would not be enough unless RSPA excludes

certain economically marginal gathering lines and accepts previous

hydrostatic testing. Otherwise the operator said 2 years would be

needed to establish an adequate compliance program. One operator said 1

year would be all right for HVL and trunk lines, but 3 years would be

needed for other lines. Another operator recommended 3 to 5 years for

low-stress pipelines that present a low risk because they carry crude

oil with a high flash point. Still another operator said that because

many distinct pipelines would be brought under the regulations

(possibly 3,000), the minimum compliance period should be 5 years. API

and an operator argued that 3, 4, or 5 years would be needed to carry

out all the requirements.

NTSB argued that 1 year would be sufficient because many operators

of low-stress pipelines have other pipelines that are subject to parts

195 and 199. Also, NTSB said compliance would mostly involve procedural

changes. It further said written procedures and documentation are

readily available for operators not already involved with parts 195 and

199. A state agency also said 1 year would be sufficient for operators

to prepare for compliance.

In view of the diversity of conditions and importance of plans,

procedures, and testing, RSPA agrees that many operators will need more

than 1 year to complete the steps necessary for existing pipelines to

meet parts 195 and 199. Of particular concern is the time needed to

craft plans and procedures that address the individual conditions of

the many distinct pipelines to which the final rule applies. However,

operators should not need more than 90 days to learn about the new

requirements and begin reporting accidents that might occur on low-

stress pipelines. Also, within 90 days operators should be able to meet

part 195 design, construction, and hydrostatic testing requirements on

portions of existing pipelines that they replace, relocate, or

otherwise change after the effective date of the final rule. Therefore,

final Sec. 195.1(c) allows existing low-stress pipelines 2 years from

today to comply with parts 195 and 199. However, accident reporting

under subpart B of part 195 begins 90 days from today. Also,

replacements, relocations, and other changes made to existing pipelines

on or after 90 days from today must meet the design, construction, and

hydrostatic testing requirements of part 195 before operation.

Note that the allowable compliance time for existing low-stress

pipelines is stated in final Sec. 195.1(c), instead of Sec. 195.1(d) as

proposed. We made this change because under existing Sec. 195.1(c), the

deadline has passed for carbon dioxide pipelines to comply with part

195 (July 12, 1992). Accordingly, the compliance time for carbon

dioxide pipelines is being removed from Sec. 195.1(c). This change

makes Sec. 195.1(c) available to state the compliance time for low-

stress pipelines.

G. Populated Area

RSPA proposed to define ``populated area'' as ``any onshore area

other than a rural area.'' Section 195.2 defines ``rural area'' as

``outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town,

village, or any other designated residential or commercial area such as

a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community

development.'' So a populated area would be an onshore area inside such

political, residential, or commercial area.

One operator suggested we exclude industrial areas from the

definition of populated area. Because of the lack of residential

housing and associated small businesses and shopping centers in these

areas, the operator said regulation would not increase safety. RSPA

strongly disagrees, however, because the rules in parts 195 and 199

protect people at large, not just people in residential communities.

Plant personnel and the environment in industrial areas are at risk

from low-stress pipelines.

An operator asked if part 195 would apply to an entire line section

between block valves if only part of the line section crosses a

populated area. As previously explained, the pipeline segment inside

the populated area and any equipment and controls located elsewhere

that are necessary for operation of the segment would have to meet part

195.

Part 195 currently uses the term ``populated area'' in

Secs. 195.234(e)(5), 195.260(c), and 195.306 (b)(1) and (c)(1). We did

not intend that the definition of ``populated area'' proposed in the

NPRM affect these rules. We proposed the definition merely to clarify

the proposed applicability of part 195 to low-stress pipelines.

Therefore, the final rule does not contain a definition of populated

area. Instead, final Sec. 195.1(b)(3), which defines the applicability

of part 195 to low-stress pipelines, incorporates the substance of the

proposed definition.

For similar reasons, we revised Sec. 195.1(b)(3) to include the

substance of the proposed definition of ``navigable waterway.'' Section

195.412(b) uses this term, but we intended the proposed definition to

clarify only the proposed applicability of part 195 to low-stress

pipelines.

H. Definition of Highly Volatile Liquid

Section 195.2 defines a ``highly volatile liquid'' as a hazardous

liquid that will form a vapor cloud when released to the atmosphere and

that has a vapor pressure exceeding 276 kPa (40 psia) at 37.8 deg.C

(100 deg.F). A ``hazardous liquid'' is defined as petroleum, petroleum

products, or anhydrous ammonia.

One commenter thought RSPA should amend the current definition of

``highly volatile liquid'' to exclude gas saturated petroleum/water

mixtures if the liquid remaining after release of the gas has a vapor

pressure of 40 psia or less at 100 deg.F. However, the definition does

not cover such mixtures. The deciding factors in the definition are (1)

the vapor pressure of the hazardous liquid in transportation; and (2)

whether that liquid will evaporate into a vapor cloud upon release to

the atmosphere. In the commenter's example, the gas in the mixture is

not relevant in determining the vapor pressure of the hazardous liquid

in transportation. Since the mixture without the gas has a vapor

pressure of 40 psia or less, it is not a highly volatile liquid.

I. Hydrostatic Testing

The NPRM proposed to require that operators hydrostatically test

new low-stress pipelines and existing low-stress pipelines that are

replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed. In addition, the NPRM

proposed that within 1 year after publication of the final rule,

existing low-stress pipelines transporting HVL must have been

hydrostatically tested under subpart E of part 195 or not operate above

80 percent of a previous qualified test or operating pressure (proposed

Sec. 195.302(c)).

API suggested that RSPA allow 2 years instead of 1 year to complete

the testing of existing HVL low-stress pipelines. Considering the total

effort companies will need to meet parts 195 and 199, RSPA agrees that

2 years is more reasonable than 1 year to prepare for compliance. As

stated above, final Sec. 195.1(c) provides a 2-year compliance time for

existing low-stress pipelines. This compliance time applies to testing

existing HVL low-stress pipelines under subpart E of part 195.

Therefore, a compliance time is not separately stated in final

Sec. 195.302(c).

Except for low-stress pipelines that are replaced, relocated, or

otherwise changed, the NPRM did not propose to require operators to

hydrostatically test existing non-HVL low-stress pipelines.

Furthermore, the NPRM explained that non-HVL low-stress pipelines were

not subject to the hydrostatic testing proposal in Docket PS-121 (56 FR

23538), which affected many older existing hazardous liquid pipelines.

However, under proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6), any non-HVL low-stress

pipeline not tested to subpart E standards could not be operated at

more than ``80 percent of the test pressure or 100 percent of the

highest operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for four

or more continuous hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts

or logs made at the time the test or operations were conducted.'' One

operator suggested that proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) would have the

effect of requiring hydrostatic testing of existing non-HVL low-stress

pipelines. Testing could be necessary if the requisite documentation

were not available, or planned operations were not consistent with

prior documented test or operating pressures. RSPA did not intend this

result. In fact, we proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) to assure that non-HVL

low-stress pipelines could continue to operate without hydrostatic

testing under subpart E. Upon further consideration, RSPA believes

proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) is unnecessary for that purpose, since

Sec. 195.302 clearly states which pipelines are subject to testing. So

we have not adopted proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(6) in the final rule.

Also, Sec. 195.406(a)(5) covers the substance of proposed

Sec. 195.406(a)(7), concerning the operating pressure of HVL low-stress

pipelines not tested to subpart E. Therefore, we have not adopted

proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(7) in the final rule.

One operator thought the proposed rules did not clearly state the

proposed exclusion of existing non-HVL low-stress pipelines from

hydrostatic testing requirements. RSPA agrees that subpart E should

clearly state the applicability of testing requirements to low-stress

pipelines. Thus, we revised existing Sec. 195.302, General

requirements, to clarify the exception of non-HVL low-stress pipelines

from testing under subpart E.

J. Pneumatic Testing

The NPRM requested comment on whether pneumatic testing should be

allowed as an alternative to hydrostatic testing. API and a state

agency favored pneumatic testing as an alternative.

Three operators and a state agency encouraged RSPA to allow

pneumatic testing as an alternative to hydrostatic testing. They

pointed out that pneumatic testing is permissible for low-stress

pipelines in petroleum service under the ASME B31.4 Code (section

437.4.3; 1989 edition). Two of these operators also favored pneumatic

testing because it would eliminate the need to collect and treat test

water.

One operator saw little advantage in pneumatically testing new low-

stress pipelines, because the cost of waste water disposal is not high

for new lines. Two operators thought pneumatic testing would be

hazardous for existing low-stress pipelines because of the potential to

mix hydrocarbons and air inside the pipeline.

Part 195 now permits pneumatic testing as an alternative to

hydrostatic testing (Sec. 195.306(c)) for carbon dioxide pipelines.

Also, RSPA's gas pipeline safety standards allow pneumatic testing as

an alternative to hydrostatic testing (49 CFR 192.503). In view of

these standards, the environmental advantages of pneumatic testing, and

the acceptability of pneumatic testing under the ASME B31.4 code, we

believe subpart E of part 195 should allow operators the option of

pneumatically testing low-stress pipelines. Therefore, the final rule

amends Sec. 195.306 to allow pneumatic testing as an alternative to

hydrostatic testing on low-stress pipelines.

RSPA recognizes that a mixture of air and residual hydrocarbons

could create a potential hazard if operators pneumatically test an

existing low-stress pipeline with air instead of inert gas. However,

this risk has not been a significant safety problem for gas pipelines

under 49 CFR part 192. It is common practice for operators to use

proper precautions if air is the test medium.

K. Environmentally Sensitive Areas

As stated in the NPRM, we have deferred proposing to regulate non-

HVL low-stress pipelines in rural ``environmentally sensitive areas''

because we have not yet developed a suitable definition of

``environmentally sensitive area.'' We also need time to learn the

extent to which pipeline spills affect such areas. Although the

definition of ``environmentally sensitive area'' in the oil spill

response plan regulations (49 CFR part 194) has been used for planning

purposes, we believe that definition is too broad to use under part

195. A definition of ``environmentally sensitive area'' under part 195

must be specific enough to distinguish pipelines and segments of

pipeline that are subject to the regulations.

As required by Sec. 202 of the PSA, RSPA has scheduled publication

of a notice of proposed rulemaking to define environmentally sensitive

areas, high density population areas, and navigable waterways. (See the

``Semiannual Regulatory Agenda'' at 59 FR 20662; April 25, 1994). We

also intend to propose, as required by the PSA, to require all

operators of hazardous liquid pipelines (including low-stress

pipelines) to identify and inventory their pipelines located in those

areas and waterways.

NRDC commented that there is ample evidence of pipeline damage in

rural environmentally sensitive areas outside navigable waterways, so

RSPA should not postpone regulation of low-stress pipelines in those

areas. NRDC suggested that RSPA use a broad definition of

environmentally sensitive area for purposes of regulating low-stress

pipelines, pending adoption of a definition required by the PSA. RSPA

has not expanded the final rule to cover low-stress pipelines in

environmentally sensitive areas outside the proposed areas of

regulation, because the NPRM did not propose regulation of those

pipelines at this time. However, we agree with NRDC's concerns about

environmental risks, and we will consider those concerns in future

rulemaking proceedings on rural low-stress pipelines. As mentioned

above, our increased understanding of environmentally sensitive area in

the pipeline context should provide a basis for future notices of

proposed rulemaking on rural gathering lines and other rural low-stress

pipelines.

One operator thought RSPA should postpone the regulation of low-

stress pipelines entirely until it proposes regulations for non-HVL

low-stress pipelines in rural environmentally sensitive areas. This

operator said additional work and effort could be avoided if it could

identify pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas before

establishing a compliance program for part 195. The commenter, however,

did not address the potential loss of benefits that would result if

regulation of low-stress pipelines were deferred pending decisions on

environmentally sensitive areas. Nevertheless, RSPA believes that once

compliance programs are in place, extending the programs to cover

additional pipeline segments, if required, should not be too difficult.

Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent an operator from bringing all

segments of a pipeline into compliance with part 195 and immediately

achieving the benefits.

L. Single Public Thoroughfare

In the NPRM (at 12215), RSPA mentioned that ``intra-facility piping

connecting adjacent facilities separated by navigable waterways or

separated by third party property other than single public

thoroughfares in populated areas would be subject to the regulations.''

A state agency and an operator asked us to clarify this single-public-

thoroughfare exception.

The intra-facility piping mentioned in the NPRM is functionally

equivalent to in-plant piping, which is excluded from regulation under

Sec. 195.1(b)(6). Essentially, intra-facility piping is transfer piping

used for plant processes. However, plants may be divided by a single

public thoroughfare, and transfer piping crosses the thoroughfare. A

public thoroughfare includes any road, from a country lane to an

interstate highway, but not a railroad or navigable waterway. Because

the operating conditions of transfer piping that crosses such

thoroughfares are comparable in most respects to those of other in-

plant piping, RSPA considers thoroughfare crossings to be in-plant

piping. This interpretation of Sec. 195.1(b)(6) is in effect now. We

will apply it to low-stress pipelines under this final rule. The

thoroughfare exception does not apply to inter-facility lines or

delivery lines, because these lines are different from in-plant piping.

One commenter, representing a refining department, suggested that

plant transfer piping that crosses property other than a thoroughfare

right-of-way, such as industrial property, should also qualify as in-

plant piping under Sec. 195.1(b)(6). This commenter also suggested that

RSPA exclude inter-facility lines in industrial areas from regulation.

Neither comment was adopted. We addressed the need to regulate low-

stress pipelines in industrial areas under the subheading ``G.

Populated Areas'' supra.

M. Offshore Pipelines

One operator commented that the NPRM lacked justification for the

proposed regulation of offshore low-stress pipelines. RSPA disagrees

because the accident consequences discussed in the NPRM and the advance

notice of proposed rulemaking could occur offshore. Also, the NPRM

discussed the need to prevent pollution of navigable waterways, which

includes offshore areas. In the final rule, Sec. 195.1(b)(3) clarifies

the coverage of offshore low-stress pipelines.

N. Drug Testing

One refinery operator suggested that RSPA except non-pipeline

companies from part 199, if they have a comparable drug program and few

low-stress pipelines. This commenter's primary concern was the cost of

administering two separate anti-drug programs, the company's own

program and another to satisfy part 199. RSPA believes this commenter

may have overestimated the burden of compliance with part 199.

Operators with comparable programs need not begin a separate part 199

program. They could modify their present programs as necessary to meet

part 199 standards. Separate plans would not be required, although the

parts of a single plan intended to meet part 199 would have to be clear

and distinct from separate company requirements. Separate tests and

analyses would be required only if the company's program required

testing for drugs not covered by part 199. Considering the savings in

compliance costs for operators with comparable programs and the

continuing concern that illegal drug use may adversely affect the safe

operation of pipelines, we did not adopt the refinery operator's

comment.

O. Marine Terminal Piping

One operator pointed out that the US Coast Guard already regulates

certain low-stress pipelines at marine terminals. This commenter

recommended that RSPA continue to except these pipelines from part 195.

Alternatively, the operator suggested RSPA establish a jurisdictional

boundary with the Coast Guard to avoid duplication of agency efforts. A

boundary, said the operator, also would eliminate the confusion over

which DOT regulations apply to low-stress pipelines at marine

terminals.

In port areas, RSPA and the US Coast Guard have independent

regulatory missions, as assigned by federal statutes. So, hazardous

liquid pipelines in port areas come under a combination of RSPA and

Coast Guard regulations. At present, we know of no conflicts or undue

burdens created by these separate regulatory programs. If such

difficulties surface with respect to low-stress pipelines, we will work

with the Coast Guard to minimize their impact.

P. Miscellaneous Clarifications

1. Pipelines Subject to Regulations

Commenting on low-stress pipelines that cross navigable waterways

in rural areas, API and an operator suggested that the final rule

clarify how much of the entire pipeline the regulations cover. The

operator thought only that part of the pipeline that actually crosses

the waterway should be covered.

As stated above, for non-HVL low-stress pipelines, we intended to

apply the regulations only to that part of the pipeline in the

populated area or navigable waterway. Final Sec. 195.1(b)(3) clarifies

this intended application by including ``or pipeline segments''

immediately after ``pipelines.''

One operator thought the wording of the proposed compliance period

(proposed Sec. 195.1(d)) was inconsistent with the proposed revision of

Sec. 195.1(b)(3). The operator thought proposed Sec. 195.1(d) implied

that operators of non-HVL low-stress pipelines located outside

populated areas and navigable waterways would have to comply with the

regulations within 1 year. To avoid this misconception, we changed

proposed Sec. 195.1(d) (now Sec. 195.1(c)) to show that the compliance

period applies only to existing low-stress pipelines covered by part

195. We also clarified the wording of proposed Sec. 195.1(b)(3) to

better identify low-stress pipelines that part 195 does not cover.

2. Definition of Low-Stress Pipeline

Another operator suggested the final rule define the various kinds

of low-stress pipelines covered. As stated above, the proposed rules

affected several kinds of distinct pipelines that operate over their

full length at 20 percent or less of SMYS, such as trunk lines and

inter-facility lines. Nevertheless, since the final rules do not refer

to low-stress pipelines by kind, there is no need to define each kind

of low-stress pipeline the rules cover.

We have, however, added a definition of the term ``low-stress

pipeline'' to Sec. 195.2, based on the present wording of

Sec. 195.1(b)(3). The definition enabled us to clarify that a pipeline

(in the sense of a continuing run of pipe and components used for

transportation) must operate from beginning to end at 20 percent or

less of SMYS to qualify as a low-stress pipeline. In drafting the final

rules, the definition also allowed us to simplify the wording of

several proposed rules.

3. Applicability of Design and Construction Standards

One proposed rule simplified by using the term ``low-stress

pipeline'' was Sec. 195.401(c)(5). The purpose of this proposed rule

was to state that the design and construction requirements of part 195

would not apply to low-stress pipelines on which construction begins

before the effective date of the final rule. Several commenters thought

proposed Sec. 195.401(c)(5) lacked clarity. So we revised it in the

style of similar provisions of Sec. 195.401(c).

In addition, one commenter pointed out that proposed

Sec. 195.401(c)(5) would not except existing low-stress pipelines from

design and construction rules applicable to certain interstate and

intrastate pipelines under Secs. 195.401(c)(1)-(3). The final rule

resolves this drafting problem by excluding low-stress pipelines from

the interstate and intrastate designations under Secs. 195.401(c)(1)-

(3).

4. Cathodic Protection

Section 195.414, Cathodic protection, is amended in paragraphs (b)

and (c). We separated requirements applicable to low-stress pipelines

from existing requirements applicable to interstate and intrastate

pipelines.

III. Advisory Committee

The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee

is a federal advisory committee established under Section 204 of the

HLPSA (49 App. U.S.C. 2003). The committee advises DOT on the

feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of standards proposed

under the HLPSA.

On August 4, 1993, the Committee met in Washington, D.C. and

discussed the NPRM. After due deliberation, the committee voted

unanimously in favor of the proposed rules. The Committee's report and

a transcript of the meeting are available for inspection in the docket.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule will increase current information collection

burdens under parts 195 and 199. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved this increased burden under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35). The OMB approval numbers

are 2137-0047, 2137-0578, 2137-0579, and 2137-0587.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

OMB considers this final rule a significant regulatory action under

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993).

Therefore, OMB has reviewed this final rule. DOT considers this final

rule significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the

Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

The comments RSPA received on the draft regulatory evaluation of

costs and benefits are summarized and discussed in the final regulatory

evaluation. The final evaluation, which shows that this final rule will

result in net benefits to society, is available for review in the

docket.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this

rulemaking action, I certify, pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that the action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Few small entities operate low-stress pipelines subject to this final

rule.

D. Executive Order 12612

RSPA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685). RSPA has

determined that the action does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 195 is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2001 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.53.

2. In Sec. 195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is

republished, paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.1 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) This part does not apply to--

* * * * *

(3) Transportation of non-HVL through low-stress pipelines, except

for any pipeline or pipeline segment that is located--

(i) In an onshore area other than a rural area;

(ii) Offshore; or

(iii) In a waterway that is navigable in fact and currently used

for commercial navigation;

* * * * *

(c) A low-stress pipeline to which this part applies that exists on

July 12, 1994 need not comply with this part or part 199 of this

chapter until July 12, 1996, except as follows:

(1) Subpart B of this part applies beginning on October 10, 1994;

and

(2) Any replacement, relocation, or other change made to existing

pipelines after October 9, 1994 must comply with Subparts A and C

through E of this part.

3. In Sec. 195.2, the following definition is added:

Sec. 195.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Low-stress pipeline means a hazardous liquid pipeline that is

operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the

specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe.

* * * * *

4. In Sec. 195.302, paragraph (b) and the introductory text of

paragraph (c) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.302 General requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Except for pipelines converted under Sec. 195.5, the following

pipelines may be operated without pressure testing under this subpart:

(1) Any hazardous liquid pipeline whose maximum operating pressure

is established under Sec. 195.406(a)(5) that is--

(i) An interstate pipeline constructed before January 8, 1971;

(ii) An interstate offshore gathering line constructed before

August 1, 1977;

(iii) An intrastate pipeline constructed before October 21, 1985;

or

(iv) A low-stress pipeline constructed before August 11, 1994 that

transports HVL.

(2) Any carbon dioxide pipeline constructed before July 12, 1991,

that--

(i) Has its maximum operating pressure established under

Sec. 195.406(a)(5); or

(ii) Is located in a rural area as part of a production field

distribution system.

(3) Any low-stress pipeline constructed before August 11, 1994 that

does not transport HVL.

(c) Except for pipelines that transport HVL onshore and low-stress

pipelines, the following compliance deadlines apply to pipelines under

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) of this section that have not been

pressure tested under this subpart:

* * * * *

5. In Sec. 195.306, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (d) is

added, to read as follows:

Sec. 195.306 Test medium.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this

section, water must be used as the test medium.

* * * * *

(d) Air or inert gas may be used as the test medium in low-stress

pipelines.

6. Section 195.401(c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.401 General requirements.

* * * * *

(c) Except as provided in Sec. 195.5, no operator may operate any

part of any of the following pipelines unless it was designed and

constructed as required by this part:

(1) An interstate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, on

which construction was begun after March 31, 1970, that transports

hazardous liquid.

(2) An interstate offshore gathering line, other than a low-stress

pipeline, on which construction was begun after July 31, 1977, that

transports hazardous liquid.

(3) An intrastate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, on

which construction was begun after October 20, 1985, that transports

hazardous liquid.

(4) A pipeline on which construction was begun after July 11, 1991,

that transports carbon dioxide.

(5) A low-stress pipeline on which construction was begun after

August 10, 1994.

8. Sections 195.414(b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.414 Cathodic protection.

* * * * *

(b) Each operator shall electrically inspect each bare hazardous

liquid interstate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, before

April 1, 1975; each bare hazardous liquid intrastate pipeline, other

than a low-stress pipeline, before October 20, 1990; each bare carbon

dioxide pipeline before July 12, 1994; and each bare low-stress

pipeline before July 12, 1996 to determine any areas in which active

corrosion is taking place. The operator may not increase its

established operating pressure on a section of bare pipeline until the

section has been so electrically inspected. In any areas where active

corrosion is found, the operator shall provide cathodic protection.

Section 195.416(f) and (g) apply to all corroded pipe that is found.

(c) Each operator shall electrically inspect all breakout tank

areas and buried pumping station piping on hazardous liquid interstate

pipelines, other than low-stress pipelines, before April 1, 1973; on

hazardous liquid intrastate pipelines, other than low-stress pipelines,

before October 20, 1988; on carbon dioxide pipelines before July 12,

1994; and on low-stress pipelines before July 12, 1996 as to the need

for cathodic protection, and cathodic protection shall be provided

where necessary.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 1994.

Ana Sol Gutierrez,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-16720 Filed 7-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P