DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS–117; Notice 3]

Transportation of a Hazardous Liquid

In Pipelines Operating at 20 Percent

or Less of Specified Minimum Yield

Strength

agency:   Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.

action:  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

summary:  By regulatory exception, the Federal pipeline safety standards
governing hazardous liquid pipelines do not apply to pipelines operated
at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield
strength (SMYS) of the pipe.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) proposes
to revise the current exception and to apply the pipeline safety
standards to certain pipelines operating at a stress level of 20 percent
or less of SMYS.  RSPA expects that this rulemaking will improve public
safety and environmental protection by minimizing the possibility of
accidents.

date:  Comments must be received by May 3, 1993.  Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.

address:   Send comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, room 8421,
Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.  Identify
the docket and notice number stated in the heading of this notice.  All
comments and docketed material will be available for inspection and
copying in Room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. each business day.

for further information contact:   G. Joseph Wolf, (202) 366–4560,
regarding the subject matter of this NPRM.  Contact the Dockets Unit,
(202) 366–4453, for copies of the NPRM or other docket material. 
Contact the Transporta-tion 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: 

Background

	When the Federal pipeline safety regulations applicable to
transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline (49 CFR part 195) were
issued in 1969, pipelines operated at a stress level of 20 percent or
less of SMYS, hereafter referred to as low stress pipelines, were
excepted from the regulations because they were thought to pose little
risk to public safety.  Since then, however, accidents that have
occurred on low stress pipelines provide reasons to reconsider the
exception.  Recent failures of such pipelines and recommendations to
revise their exception from regulation were described in the Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on October 31, 1990
(Notice 1; 55 FR 45822).  The ANPRM noted that RSPA would determine
whether and to what extent to remove the exception.  Based on data in
the responses to the ANPRM, which indicate a favorable benefit to cost
ratio, RSPA is proposing to regulate certain low stress pipelines.

Current Requirements

	Section 195.1(b)(3) provides that Part 195 does not apply to
“Transportation of a hazardous liquid through pipelines that operate
at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield
strength of the line pipe.”  The pipelines excepted are those steel
pipelines in which the internal operating pressure results in a stress
level of the pipe that does not exceed 20 percent of SMYS at any point
along the length of the pipeline.

Information Acquisition

	Because low stress pipelines have been excepted under §195.1(b)(3),
owners and operators are excepted from filing accident reports with RSPA
pursuant to subpart B of part 195.

	Consequently, RSPA lacked accident data about such pipelines.  However,
the ANPRM contained a questionnaire for the purpose of gathering
information to make a decision regarding rulemaking.  The owners or
operators of hazardous liquid pipelines operated at 20 percent or less
of SMYS and not otherwise excepted under §195.1(b) were requested to
complete the questionnaire for each such pipeline and return it.  RSPA
requested the information in the questionnaire to estimate the number
and mileage of low stress pipelines, to perform a regulatory impact
analysis (including a cost-benefit analysis), and to develop and
consider alternatives that would ensure the safe operation of low stress
pipelines.

	In addition, state and local governments and other interested parties
were invited to provide comments and available information about low
stress pipelines located within their jurisdictions.  Comments received
provided the data to develop the proposals in this NPRM.

Data Summary

	RSPA received 50 responses to the ANPRM: 40 from pipeline operators, 2
from other representatives of the pipeline industry, 5 from government
representatives, and 3 from unaffiliated members of the public.  The
data furnished in the responses were tabulated in computerized format. 
Using the computerized data and the narrative comments in the responses,
the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC) of RSPA
prepared a draft regulatory evaluation titled “Economic Evaluation of
Regulating Certain Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Operating at 20% or Less
of Specified Minimum Yield Strength.”

	Nine of the 40 pipeline operators who submitted comments furnished no
data.  The other 31 operators reported the operation of 1555 individual
pipelines, a total of more than 3,600 miles, operating at a stress level
of 20% or less of SMYS.  The largest number of these are classified as
interfacility lines (lines between petrochemical facilities) with 996
lines (939 miles) reported.  Also reported were 272 trunk pipelines
(1,816 miles), 153 gathering lines (564 miles), 116 offshore pipelines
(463 miles, estimated), and 105 delivery pipelines (126 miles). 
Interfacility and delivery lines are described later.  For 12 pipelines,
information furnished was inadequate for classifying the lines.  Based
on the data submitted, regulated hazardous liquid pipeline miles would
increase an estimated 5 percent to 157,100 miles if low stress pipelines
were regulated to the extent proposed in this NPRM.

	The sum of the miles of pipelines in high risk areas as defined in the
ANPRM exceeded the total miles of pipelines reported because many
pipeline lengths are in more than one kind of higher risk area.  For
those pipelines for which risk or absence of risk was reported, the sum
of the total length of all pipelines that traverse higher risk areas was
1,045 miles.  Of those 1,045 miles, 349 miles (33 percent) traverse
populated areas, and 101 miles (10 percent) cross navigable waters, some
both traversing populated areas and crossing navigable waters.

Comments and Analysis

	RSPA anticipated that there were three categories of low stress
pipelines—interfacility lines moving hazardous liquids between
petrochemical facilities, gathering lines, and trunk (long distance
transportation) lines.  Comments to the ANPRM discussed an additional
category of low stress pipelines which they called delivery lines. 
Delivery lines generally were described as pipelines that transport
hazardous liquids between trunk lines or marine facilities and other
petrochemical facilities, for example, refineries, manufacturing plants,
and storage or transfer terminals.

	In general, operators report that deleting the exception would have
minimal economic impact on the operation of low stress trunk lines. 
Minimal impact is expected because many low stress trunk lines already
are operated in accordance with Part 195 even though they are excepted
from this requirement.  On the other hand, operators anticipate that the
initial and continuing annual cost of complying with Part 195 for
delivery lines, interfacility lines and gathering lines will be high. 
Some operators reported anticipated costs of compliance, which have been
considered in a regulatory impact analysis of the proposed changes.

	Most trunk lines are operated at an internal pressure creating a pipe
hoop stress in excess of 20 percent of SMYS of the pipe because it is
not economical to construct and operate trunk lines at a low stress.  To
maximize economy, many trunk lines are designed to be operated at the
maximum pressure permitted by Part 195, which is equivalent to 72
percent of SMYS.  Low stress trunk pipelines represent 18 percent of the
pipelines and 53 percent of the mileage reported and have an average
length of 6.7 miles.  They are operated at low stress for varying
reasons.

	In the ANPRM, RSPA stated that it believed that there may be a limited
number of low stress trunk lines that transport hazardous liquids for
long distances.  RSPA believed that these pipelines are operated at low
stress because typically they are old and potentially in poor condition.
 Some operators disputed RSPA’s belief, stating that a pipeline is
operated at low stress for numerous reasons but not because of its age
or condition.  Among the reasons given were: structural considerations
other than internal pressure (for example, rigidity); low volume demands
on the pipeline; diminishing volumes transported; and minimal
consequences of damage from external sources.

	Of the pipelines for which length was reported, 20 pipelines were
reported to be 30 miles and longer.  Of the 20 lines, 15 were trunk
lines which normally would be operated at high stress.  RSPA considered
that the average accident costs per mile reported for these 20 longer
lines are about one-fourth of the average for all types of low stress
pipelines.  Therefore, the longer low stress trunk lines represent no
greater risk than all reported pipelines operated at low stress. 
Regulation of a low stress pipeline on the basis of its length is not
proposed.

	Gathering lines represent another category of low stress pipelines.  As
set forth in §195.1, gathering lines in non-rural areas, other than low
stress lines, currently are subject to Part 195, while gathering lines
in rural areas, regardless of their stress level, are not subject to
those rules.  Of 1526 pipelines identifiable by pipeline category for
which length was reported, there were 153 gathering lines (564 miles)
with an average length of 3.7 miles.  They represent 16 percent of the
mileage and 10 percent of the pipelines analyzed.

	Some operators and one industry trade association commented that, if
regulated, low stress gathering lines in economically marginal
operations could be shut down.  They further commented that shutdown
would result in hazardous liquids being moved by other modes of
transportation, which they argue are more expensive and more hazardous. 
The commenters did not suggest specific separate treatment for
economically marginal gathering operations.

	Some operators expressed concern that gathering lines in rural areas
would become regulated.  No change in the definition of rural area is
proposed, and rural gathering lines have been excepted from regulation
by statute.  However, the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, Public Law No.
102–508, which was enacted on October 24, 1992, allows regulation of
rural gathering lines.  Therefore, certain rural gathering lines
currently excepted from regulation may be regulated in the future.  In
this NPRM, RSPA proposes to regulate low stress gathering lines only to
the extent they are located in populated areas or offshore.

	The ANPRM questionnaire requested reports of pipelines within 220 yards
of populated areas, defined as areas other than rural areas under
§195.2.  Currently, gathering lines in non-rural (populated) areas are
subject to Part 195 unless they are operated at low stress.  The data
reported indicate that some low stress gathering lines are transporting
large volumes of hazardous liquids in populated areas.  Some operators
suggested that no gathering lines should be regulated but offered
nothing to address the safety and environmental concerns about gathering
lines or a rationale for different treatment.  RSPA proposes to regulate
those lengths of low stress level gathering lines traversing populated
areas.  Whether all gathering lines (regardless of their stress level),
including those in populated areas, should be excepted from regulation
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

	Some operators expressed concern that incorporated political
subdivisions of state governments such as counties and townships would
be considered by regulation to be non-rural areas, and therefore that
gathering lines in such areas would become regulated.  Under the
definition in §195.2, rural area means outside the limits of any
incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or any other
designated residential or commercial area such as a subdivision, a
business or shopping center, or community development.  A county,
township, and similar political subdivision is not the same as a city,
town, or village.  Therefore a gathering line in a rural area of a
county, township or similar political subdivision is not intended to be
regulated.

	Comments confirmed RSPA’s belief that low stress interfacility
pipelines used to move hazardous liquids to or from petrochemical
facilities such as refineries, manufacturing plants, and hazardous
liquid terminals, are relatively short.  Low stress operation is
adequate to move the liquid to or from the complex at the rate required
for operation.  Design of such pipelines frequently is based on
considerations other than internal pressure, for example, additional
thickness to provide rigidity or an allowance for expected corrosion. 
The operators of low stress interfacility lines usually have not
operated pipelines subject to part 195, and therefore may not be
familiar with its requirements.  Certain interfacility pipelines will
become regulated under the proposed rulemaking.  Interfacility lines
represented about 65 percent of the pipelines and 27 percent of the
miles reported.  Included in these interfacility pipeline statistics are
891 pipelines (716 miles) reported by one operator, Shell, of a total of
996 interfacility pipelines (939 miles) reported.

	In response to the ANPRM, commenters asked whether intrafacility lines
(in-plant piping) within petrochemical facilities and interfacility
lines (piping connecting facilities) crossing a common boundary or a
single public thoroughfare between adjacent properties would be subject
to regulation if the regulations were changed.  Intrafacility lines are
excepted from regulation in accordance with §195.1(b)(6).  However,
intrafacility 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 if the 20% SMYS exception is modified.

	The data reported in response to the ANPRM indicate that delivery lines
were a type of low stress pipeline not anticipated by RSPA prior to the
ANPRM.  Comments by operators indicate that low stress delivery lines
typically are short lines.  The data for those reported (105 lines, 126
miles) indicate an average length of about 1( mile.  They represent a
small portion of the lines affected by the proposed rulemaking, but
generally they move large volumes of hazardous liquids.  Of all
pipelines reported, delivery lines represent only about 7 percent of the
lines and 4 percent of the miles.  The proposed rules would regulate
many of these low stress delivery lines based on their transporting a
highly volatile liquid or traversing a populated area or navigable
waterway.  RSPA does not propose a separate treatment for them.

	Some operators expressed concern that piping within storage or terminal
facilities would become regulated.  Piping associated with breakout
tanks at storage facilities of regulated hazardous liquid pipelines
currently is regulated, regardless of operating stress, if the liquids
are reinjected and transported further by a pipeline system that is
regulated.  Conversely, piping within distribution and marketing
terminals exclusively transferring hazardous liquids between modes of
transportation excepted from regulation under §195.1(b)(7).

	Some operators explicitly included the cost to pressure test in their
estimates of the cost of compliance.  The treatment of the cost of
hydrostatic testing is covered in the regulatory impact analysis
performed by VNTSC.

	Some operators and one government representative have suggested the use
of pneumatic testing (air under pressure) as a low cost alternative to
hydrostatic testing (water under pressure).  The American society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Pressure Piping ASME B31.4–1989
Edition for Liquid Transportation Systems for Hydrocarbons, Liquid
Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols (B31.4) permits the use
of hydrostatic or pneumatic testing for pipelines to be operated at a
hoop stress of 20 percent or less of SMYS of the pipe.  Part 192
(Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal
Safety Standards) permits the use of pneumatic tests as an alternative
to hydrostatic tests.  The use of pneumatic testing would eliminate the
need to collect and process the testing water contaminated by residual
contents of the pipeline.  RSPA has not included a proposal to permit
pneumatic testing of hazardous liquid pipelines.  Comments are invited
on whether and to what extent pneumatic testing should be permitted in
lieu of hydrostatic testing.

	Some commenters claimed that the cost to bring low stress pipelines
into compliance and to operate the pipelines in compliance with Part 195
is not commensurate with the benefits of regulation.  The principal
costs noted were preparation and maintenance of operations and
maintenance manuals, drug testing programs, pressure monitoring
equipment, cathodic protection systems, and pressure testing.  Some
operators of low stress pipelines suggest that, because of the cost,
only low stress pipelines traversing populated areas, navigable waters,
or environmentally sensitive areas should be considered for regulation. 
Two government commenters supported removing the blanket exception for
low stress pipelines, but argued for a limited exception based on
criteria such as age, length, location, and volume transported.  Two
other government commenters supported regulation of all low stress
pipelines.

	RSPA carefully considered comments that suggested regulating low stress
pipelines.  The regulatory impact analysis indicates that the benefits
of regulating all low stress pipelines substantially exceed the costs. 
At this time, RSPA proposes regulating low stress pipelines only on the
basis of one or more measures of risk as discussed below.

	Several commenters discussed the length of time needed to comply with
regulations if the exception is deleted or modified.  Both 1 year and 5
years were suggested as the time needed for compliance.  Comments are
solicited as to whether one year would provide sufficient time to bring
newly regulated low stress pipelines into compliance with parts 195 and
199.

	A letter from Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey suggested that RSPA
require that operators of low stress pipelines apply to RSPA on an
individual basis to continue the exception from regulation of individual
low stress pipelines.  The Senator would require that operators certify
initially and annually thereafter the conditions justifying the
exception.  Since RSPA’s proposal would discontinue the exception for
most higher risk pipelines, and there is an existing method to obtain
waiver from regulation, RSPA plans no further action on this comment.

Proposal

	RSPA proposes to revise §195.1(b)(3) which excepts low stress
pipelines from regulation under Part 195 by excepting from regulation
only a low stress pipeline that is not used in the transportation of a
highly volatile liquid or that does not traverse a populated area or a
navigable waterway.  RSPA does not propose to regulate low stress
pipelines on the basis of any additional criteria.  RSPA’s proposed
rule will reduce the risk to public safety and the environment and is
supported by a favorable benefit/cost ratio determined on the basis of
data furnished by operators of low stress hazardous liquid pipelines and
published data on pipelines.  This proposal was developed in response to
recommendations from the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR) and the Safety Review Task Force of the
Department of Transportation (DOT).  It also is responsive to the
delegation to RSPA following passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
regarding prevention of spills and the containment of oil in pipelines. 
This delegation concerns the prevention of pollution of navigable
waters, shorelines, and the exclusive economic zone.  Finally, this
proposal is responsive to the amendment to section 203(b) to the
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) made by section 206 of the
Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.  That amendment provides that exception to
regulation under the HLPSA shall not be based solely on operation at low
internal stress.

	RSPA now proposes to regulate the low stress pipelines which are used
for the transportation of highly volatile liquids or which traverse
populated areas or crossing navigable waterways.  RSPA is deferring a
decision on whether to propose regulation of low stress lines in
environmentally sensitive areas because that subject is being studied to
evaluate the extent to which pipeline spills affect environmentally
sensitive areas and to develop a definition of environmentally sensitive
areas appropriate for pipeline regulation.

	This proposal to regulate low stress pipelines that cross navigable
waters will assure that pipelines that could be struck and damaged by
vessel operations, will not be excepted from regulation.  Low stress
pipelines also may be located in water which is “navigable” under
some definitions, but which is not navigable in fact.  Because these
pipelines are not at risk of being damaged by vessel operations, RSPA
does not propose to regulate such pipelines at this time.  They will be
considered for regulation when RSPA considers extension of the
regulation of low stress pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas.

	Regardless of the stress at which they are operated, pipelines are
vulnerable to damage from the two principal causes of pipeline
failures—outside force damage and corrosion.  Admittedly, pipelines
which are operated at lower stresses may survive damage from outside
force and corrosion for a longer period before failure than will high
stress pipelines, but the risk of failure is present nevertheless.  The
December 1989 Exxon pipeline failure, which spilled oil into the Arthur
Kill waterway between New York and New Jersey at a cost of $45 million,
is an illustration of a spill from an unregulated low stress pipeline
caused by outside force damage.  The December 1986 Kinley pipeline
failure, which spilled 5000 gallons of jet fuel into surface and ground
water in Iowa and has cost $273,000 to date, is an illustration of a
spill from an unregulated low stress pipeline caused by corrosion.

	Under the proposed rulemaking, RSPA would revise §195.1(b)(3), which
now excepts from regulation all low stress pipelines, to regulate
certain new and existing low stress pipelines.  Existing pipelines that
would be brought under the regulations because of the modification of
the exception would be subject to Part 199 and all subparts of Part 195
except Subparts C—Design Requirements, D—Construction, and
E—Hydrostatic Testing, except that Subpart E would apply only to low
stress pipelines used in the transportation of a highly volatile liquid
(HVL).  The exception from the design and construction requirements is
covered by the proposed addition of §195.401(c)(5).  Although the
requirements of Subpart E—Hydrostatic Testing currently would not
apply to non-HVL pipelines constructed before dates specified in
§195.302, an NPRM published on May 22, 1991 (Docket No. PS–121;
Notice 1; 56 FR 23538) proposes hydrostatic testing of those pipelines
at a pressure at least 25 percent in excess of the maximum operating
pressure or, alternatively, a commensurate reduction of the operating
pressure.  RSPA proposes that the testing rules proposed in PS–121
Notice 1 would not apply to non-HVL low stress pipelines that would
become subject to Part 195 if §195.1(b)(3) is modified as proposed in
this NPRM.

	All sections of parts 195 and 199 would apply to regulated low stress
pipelines constructed after the effective date of the issuance of a
final rule.  The proposed modification of §195.1(b)(3) would not affect
pipelines currently excepted by other criteria in §195.1(b).

	RSPA proposes to correct §195.1(b)(7) to delete the period at the end
and add “; and”.  This will clarify that part 195 does not apply to
pipelines excepted under any of the criteria in §195.1(b).

	Operators of pipelines currently excepted under §195.1(b)(3) are
cautioned that proposed regulations being considered now or in the
future may apply to the operation of those pipelines currently excepted
under §195.1(b)(3), and are advised to follow all notices pertaining to
hazardous liquid pipeline regulation appearing in the Federal Register.

Request for Comments

	Comments may address any aspect of this proposal.  However, RSPA
requests specific comments on the following: Whether there should be
separate treatment in this rulemaking for economically marginal
gathering line operations in non-rural areas and what form such
treatment should take; whether pneumatic testing of low stress pipelines
should be permitted as an alternative to hydrostatic testing under
subpart E; and whether one year would provide sufficient time to comply
with parts 195 and 199 to the extent they would be made applicable.

Impact Assessment

	These proposals would extend the requirements of parts 195 and 199 to
certain steel pipelines currently excepted from regulation solely on the
basis of a low operating stress level under §195.1(b)(3).  Pipelines
constructed prior to or under construction of the effective date of the
proposed rule would be subject to all of Part 195 except subparts C, D,
and E which apply respectively to design, construction, and hydrostatic
testing.  Operators have raised issues regarding the cost of
implementation, particularly regarding the cost of implementation for
gathering lines in areas other than rural areas.  Operators also have
suggested that any change to the existing exception be limited to low
stress pipelines in higher risk areas.  The proposed modification of the
regulations is consistent with these operator comments.

	From the responses to the ANPRM, the accident cost per mile per year on
low stress pipelines not operated in accordance with those regulations
was estimated to be $3692.  The accident cost per mile per year on low
stress pipelines already operated in accordance with the pipeline safety
regulations was estimated to be $105 per mile per year.  Further, the
five-year average cost of accidents on high stress (regulated) lines
taken from incident reports in OPS files is similar to the costs for
those low stress lines operated in compliance with the regulations. 
Therefore, RSPA presumes that the cost of accidents on low stress
pipelines will be reduced to a level of $105 per mile per year.

	In developing the analysis, the cost of the Exxon Arthur Kill accident
was distributed over ten years.  RSPA considers this distribution period
equitable because the age of pipelines systems in general, and because
the cost consequences of accidents are increasing rapidly as a
consequence of environmental considerations.  Overall, the regulatory
impact analysis indicates a favorable benefit/cost ratio.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12291 and DOT

Policies and Procedures

	This proposed rule is considered to be non-major under Executive Order
12291, and is not considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).  A Draft Regulatory
Evaluation has been prepared and is available in the docket.

Paperwork Reduction Act

	The reporting requirements in subpart B and recordkeeping requirements
under §§195.54, 195.55, 195.56, 195.57, 195.234, 195.266, 195.310,
195.402, and 195.404 are being submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Comments on
the collection of information should be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of
Transportation.  This submission would modify the current approval of
pipeline recordkeeping and accident reporting under OMB Nos.
2137–0047, 2137–0578, and 2137–0583.  The proposed regulation of
certain pipelines operated at 20 percent or less of SMYS would represent
an increase of about 7100 additional pipeline miles subject to the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in Part 195, or 5 percent more
than the miles currently subject to those requirements.  RSPA estimates
that burden hours for recordkeeping and accident reporting will increase
a total of 2494 hours above the current burden of 55639 hours to 58133
hours.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

	Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this
proposed 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,
because few, if any, small entities operate pipelines subject to part
195.  Each operator responding to the ANPRM reported that it was not a
small business.

Executive Order 12612

	RSPA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612 (52 FR 41685) and has determined that
it 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.

Part 195—Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline

	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.	Section 195.1 would be amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(7), and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§195.1	Applicability.

*          *          *          *          *

	(b)	*   *   *

	(3)	Transportation of a hazardous liquid through a pipeline that is
operated at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe, and that:

	(i)	Is not used in the transportation of highly volatile liquids;

	(ii)	Does not traverse a populated area; or

	(iii)	Does not traverse a navigable waterway.

*          *          *          *          *

	(7)	Transportation of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide by vessel,
aircraft, tank truck, tank car, or other vehicle, or terminal facilities
used exclusively to transfer hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide between
such modes of transportation; and

*          *          *          *          *

	(d)	The operator of a pipeline that was excepted from regulations prior
to [date of publication of the final rule will be inserted] on the basis
of operation at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe must comply with this part by
[one year after the date of publication of the final rule will be
inserted].

	3.	Section 195.2 would be amended by adding in appropriate alphabetical
order the followning [sic] definitions:

§195.2	Definitions.

*          *          *          *          *

	Navigable waterway means a waterway which is navigable in fact and is
currently used for commercial navigation.

*          *          *          *          *

	Populated area means any onshore area other than a rural area.

*          *          *          *          *

	4.	Section 195.302 would be amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d) and adding new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§195.302	General requirements.

*          *          *          *          *

	(c)	After [one year after date of publication of the final rule will be
inserted], no person may transport a highly volatile liquid in a
pipeline that was excepted from regulation under this part prior to
[date of publication of the final rule will be inserted] on the basis of
operation at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe unless the pipeline has been
hydrostatically tested in accordance with this subpart or its maximum
operating pressure has been established under §195.406(a)(6) or (7).

*          *          *          *          *

	5.	Section 195.401 would be amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read
as follows:

§195.401	General requirements.

	(c)	*   *   *

	(5)	A pipeline not regulated on the basis of operation at a stress
level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of
the line pipe prior to [date of publication of the final rule will be
inserted] on which construction was begun after [date of publication of
the final rule will be inserted].	

	6.	Section 195.406 would be amended by adding paragraphs (a)(6) and
(a)(7) to read as follows:

§195.406	Maximum operating pressure.

	(a)	*   *   *

	(6)	In the case of a pipeline used for the transportation of hazardous
liquids that was not regulated prior to [date of publication of the
final rule will be inserted] because it was operated at a stress level
of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the
line pipe and that was not tested under subpart E of this part, 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.

	(7)	In the case of a pipeline used for the transportation of highly
volatile liquids that was not regulated prior to [date of publication of
the final rule will be inserted] because it was operated at a stress
level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of
the line pipe and that was not tested under subpart E of this part, 80
percent of the test pressure or 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.

*          *          *          *          *

	Issued in Washington, DC on February 26, 1993.

George W. Tenley, Jr.,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 93–4850 Filed 3–2–93; 8:45 am]

PS–117, #3, NPRM

 PAGE   2 

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 1993

Pages 12213 - 12218

PS–117, #3, NPRM 		  PAGE  6 /  NUMPAGES  6 

