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 DATES:  

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:

1.	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 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 §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
§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 on 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 §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 §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 §195.1(c), instead of §195.1(d) as
proposed.  We made this change because under existing §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 §195.1(c).  This change makes
§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
§§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 §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 §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( C (100(
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( 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
§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 §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
§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 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 §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 §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 §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 §195.406(a)(6) is unnecessary for that purpose, since
§195.302 clearly states which pipelines are subject to testing.  So we
have not adopted proposed §195.406(a)(6) in the final rule.

	Also, §195.406(a)(5) covers the substance of proposed §195.406(a)(7),
concerning the operating pressure of HVL low-stress pipelines not tested
to Subpart E.  Therefore, we have not adopted proposed §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 §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 (§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 §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 §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 noting 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
§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 §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 §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, §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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.	Pipeline 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 §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 §195.1(d)) was inconsistent with the proposed revision of
§195.1(b)(3).  The operator  thought  proposed §1195.1(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 
§195.1(d) (now §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 §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 §195.2, based on the present wording of §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 §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 §195.401(c)(5) lacked clarity.  So we revised it in the style
of similar provisions of  §195.401(c).

	In addition, one commenter pointed out that proposed §195.401 (c)(5)
would not except existing low-stress pipelines from design and
construction rules applicable to certain interstate and intrastate
pipelines under §§ 195.402 (c)(1) - (3).  The final rule resolves this
drafting problem by excluding low-stress pipelines from the interstate
and intrastate designations under §§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, DC 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., and 49 CFR 1.53.

	2.	In §195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is republished,
paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) are revised to read as follows:

§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 §195.2, the following definition is added:

§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 §195.302, paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph
(c) are revised to read as follows:

§195.302	General requirements.

*	*	*	*	*

	(b)	Except for pipelines converted under § 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 §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 §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 §195.306, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (d) is added,
to read as follows:

§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:

§195.401	General requirements.

*	*	*	*	*

	(c)	Except as provided in §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:

§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, RSPA.

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

Amendment 195 - 53

 PAGE   

Federal Register/ Vol. 59, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 2, 1994

Pages 35465 - 35471

	  PAGE  9 /  NUMPAGES  \* MERGEFORMAT  9 

195-53.DOC - 10/6/95

