Fuders Register / Vol. 58. No. 40 i Wednesday, March 3, 1993 1 Proposed Rules

requirement if (1) compliance with boththe non-Federal and the Federalrequirement is not possible; (2) the non-Federal requirement creates an obstacleto accomplishment of the Federal law orregulations; or (3) It is preempted undersection 105(a)(4), concerning certaincovered subjects, or section 105(b),concerning highway routing. Coveredsubjects include:

(i) The designation, description, andclassification of hazardous materials;

(ii) The packing, repacking, handling,labeling, marking, and placarding ofhazardous materials;

(iii) The preparation, execution, anduse of shipping documents pertaining tohazardous materials and requirementsrespecting the number, content, andplacement of such documents;

(iv) The written notification,recording, and reporting ofunintentional release in transportationof hazardous material; or

(v) The design, manufacturing,fabrication, marking, maintenance,reconditioning, repairing, or testing of apackage or container which isrepresented, marked, certified, or soldas qualified for use in the transportationof hazardous materials. (49 App. U.S.C.1804(a)(4)(A) and (B)).

This advance notice of proposedrulemaking addresses certain coveredsubjects. If rulemaking action leads topromulgation of a final rule, this rulewould preempt any State, local, orIndian tribe requirements concerningcovered subjects unless the non-Federalrequirements are "substantively thesame" (56 FR 20424, May 13, 1992) asthe Federal requirement. Thus, RSPAlacks discretion in this area, andpreparation of a federalism assessmentis not warranted.C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Based on limited informationconcerning size and nature of entitieslikely affected, I certify that thisadvance notice of proposed rulemakingwill not, if promulgated, have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities under criteriaof the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Thiscertification is subject to modificationbased on the merits of commentsreceived.

Issued in Washington. DC. on February 26,1993, under authority delegated in 49 CFRpart 106, appendix A.Robert A. kGnire,DeputyAssociate Administrator forHazardous Materials Safety.IFR Doc. 93-4882 Filed 3-2-93; 8:45 amlSILLING 000 "I"".P

49 CFR Part 195[Docket No. PS-117; Notie 3]

RIN 2137-A86

Transportation of a Hazardous UquldIn Pipelines Operating at 20 Percent .orLess of Specified Minimum YieldStrengthAGENCY: Research and Special ProgramsAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: By regulatory exception, theFederal pipeline safety standardsgoverning hazardous liquid pipelines donot apply to pipelines operated at astress level of 20 percent or less of thespecified minimum yield strength(SMYS) of the pipe. In this Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM), theResearch and Special ProgramsAdministration (RSPA) proposes torevise the current exception and toapply the pipeline safety standards tocertain pipelines operating at a stresslevel of 20 percent or less of SMYS.RSPA expects that this rulemaking willimprove public safety andenvironmental protection byminimizing the possibility of accidents.DATES: Comments must be received byMay 3, 1993. Late-filed comments willbe considered to the extent practicable.ADDRESSES: Send comments induplicath to the Dockets Unit, room8421, Research and Special ProgramsAdministration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 400 Seventh Street,SW., Washington, DC 20590. Identifythe docket and notice number stated inthe heading of this notice. All commentsand docketed material will be availablefor inspection and copying in Room8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eachbusiness day.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:G. Joseph Wolf, (202) 366-4560,regarding the subject matter of thisNPRM. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202)366-4453. for copies of the NPRM orother docket material. Contact theTransportation Safety Institute, PipelineSafety Division, 6500 South MacArthurBoulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73125,(405) 680-4643, for a copy of 49 CFRpart 195.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundWhen the Federal pipeline safety

regulations applicable to transportationof hazardous liquids by pipeline (49CFR part 195) were issued in 1969,pipelines operated at a stress level of 20percent or less of SMYS, hereafterreferred to as low stress pipelines, were

excepted from the regulations becausethey were thought to pose little risk topublic safety. Since then, however,accidents that have occurred on lowstress pipelines provide reasons toreconsider the exception. Recentfailures of such pipelines andrecommendations to revise theirexception from regulation weredescribed In the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)published on October 31, 1990 (Notice1; 55 FR 45822). The ANPRM noted thatRSPA would determine whether and towhat extent to remove the exception.Based on data in the responses to theANPRM, which indicate a favorablebenefit to cost ratio, RSPA is proposingto regulate certain low stress pipelines.

Current Requirements

Section 195.1(b)(3) provides that Part195 does not apply to "Transportationof a hazardous liquid through pipelinesthat operate at a stress level of 20percent or less of the specifiedminimum yield strength of the linepipe." The pipelines excepted are thosesteel pipelines in which the internaloperating pressure results in a stresslevel of the pipe that does not exceed 20percent of SMYS at any point along thelength of the pipeline.

Information Acquisition

Because low stress pipelines havebeen excepted under § 195.1(b)(3),owners and operators are excepted fromfiling accident reports with RSPApursuant to subpart B of part 195.

Consequently, RSPA lacked accidentdata about such pipelines. However, theANPRM contained a questionnaire forthe purpose of gathering information tomake a decision regarding rulemaking.The owners or operators of hazardousliquid pipelines operated at 20 percentor less of SMYS and not otherwiseexcepted under § 195.1(b) wererequested to complete the questionnairefor each such pipeline and return it.RSPA requested the information in thequestionnaire to estimatb the numberand mileage of low stress pipelines, toperform a regulatory Impact analysis(including a cost-benefit analysis), andto develop and consider alternativesthat would ensure the safe operation oflow stress pipelines.

In addition, state and localgovernments and other interestedparties were invited to providecomments and available informationabout low stress pipelines locatedwithin their jurisdictions. Commentsreceived provided the data to developthe proposals in this NPRM.

12213

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

Data Summary

RSPA received 50 responses to theANPRM: 40 from pipeline operators, 2from other representatives of thepipeline industry, 5 from governmentrepresentatives, and 3 from unaffiliatedmembers of the public. The datafurnished in the responses weretabulated in computerized format. Usingthe computerized data and the narrativecomments in the responses, the VolpeNational Transportation Systems Center(VNTSC) of RSPA prepared a draftregulatory evaluation titled "EconomicEvaluation of Regulating CertainHazardous Liquid Pipelines Operatingat 20% or Less of Specified MinimumYield Strength."

Nine of the 40 pipeline operators whosubmitted comments furnished no data.The other 31 operators reported theoperation of 1555 individual pipelines,a total of more than 3,600 miles,operating at a stress level of 20% or lessof SMYS. The largest number of theseare classified as interfacility lines (linesbetween petrochemical facilities) with996 lines (939 miles) reported. Alsoreported were 272 trunk pipelines(1,816 miles), 153 gathering lines (564miles), 116 offshore pipelines (463miles, estimated), and 105 deliverypipelines (126 miles). Interfacility anddelivery lines are described later. For 12pipelines, information furnished wasinadequate for classifying the lines.Based on the data submitted, regulatedhazardous liquid pipeline miles wouldincrease an estimated 5 percent to157,100 miles if low stress pipelineswere regulated to the extent proposed inthis NPRM.

The sum of the miles of pipelines inhigh risk areas as defined in the ANPRMexceeded the total miles of pipelinesreported because many pipeline lengthsare in more than one kind of higher riskarea. For those pipelines for which riskor absence of risk was reported, the sumof the total length of all pipelines thattraverse higher risk areas was 1,045miles. Of those 1,045 miles, 349 miles(33 percent) trayerse populated areas,and 101 miles (10 percent) crossnavigable waters, some both traversingpopulated areas and crossing navigablewaters.

Comments and Analysis

RSPA anticipated that there werethree categories of low stresspipelines-interfacility lines movinghazardous liquids betweenpetrochemical facilities, gathering lines,and trunk (long distance transportation)lines. Commenters to the ANPRMdiscussed an additional category of lowstress pipelines which they called

delivery lines. Delivery lines generallywere described as pipelines thattransport hazardous liquids betweentrunk lines or marine facilities and otherpetrochemical facilities, for example,refineries, manufacturing plants, andstorage or transfer terminals.

In general, operators report thatdeleting the exception would haveminimal economic impact on theoperation of low stress trunk lines.Minimal impact is expected becausemany low stress trunk lines already areoperated in accordance with Part 195even though they are excepted from thisrequirement. On the other hand,operators anticipate that the initial andcontinuing annual cost of complyingwith Part 195 for delivery lines,interfacility lines and gathering lineswill be high. Some operators reportedanticipated costs of compliance, whichhave been considered in a regulatoryimpact analysis of the proposedchanges.

Most trunk lines are operated at aninternal pressure creating 'a pipe hoopstress in excess of 20 percent of SMYSof the pipe because it is not economicalto construct and operate trunk lines ata low stress. To maximize economy,many trunk lines are designed to beoperated at the maximum pressurepermitted by Part 195, which isequivalent to 72 percent of SMYS. Lowstress trunk pipelines represent 18percent of the pipelines and 53 percentof the mileage reported and have anaverage length of 6.7 miles. They areoperated at low stress for varyingreasons.

In the ANPRM, RSPA stated that itbelieved that there may be a limitednumber of low stress trunk lines thattransport hazardous liquids for longdistances. RSPA believed that thesepipelines are operated at low stressbecause typically they are old andpotentially in poor condition. Someoperators disputed RSPA's belief,stating that a pipeline is operated at lowstress for numerous reasons but notbecause of its age or condition. Amongthe reasons given were: structuralconsiderations other than internalpressure (for example, rigidity); lowvolume demands on the pipeline;diminishing volumes transported; andminimal consequences of damage fromexternal sources.

Of the pipelines for which length wasreported, 20 pipelines were reported tobe 30 miles and longer. Of the 20 lines,15 were trunk lines which normallywould be operated at high stress. RSPAconsidered that the average accidentcosts per mile reported for these 20longer lines are about one-fourth of theaverage for all types of low stress

pipelines. Therefore, the longer lowstress trunk lines represent no greaterrisk than all reported pipelines operatedat low stress. Regulation of a low stresspipeline on the basis of its length is notproposed.

Gathering lines represent anothercategory of low stress pipelines. As setforth in § 195.1, gathering lines in non-rural areas, other than low stress lines,currently are subject to Part 195, whilegathering lines in rural areas, regardlessof their stress level, are not subject tothose rules. Of 1526 pipelinesidentifiable by pipeline category forwhich length was reported, there were153 gathering lines (564 miles) with anaverage length of 3.7 miles. Theyrepresent 16 percent of the mileage and10 percent of the pipelines analyzed.Some operators and one industry

trade association commented that, ifregulated, low stress gathering lines ineconomically marginal operations couldbe shut down. They further commentedthat shutdown would result inhazardous liquids being moved by othermodes of transportation, which theyargue are more expensive and morehazardous. The commenters did notsuggest specific separate treatment foreconomically marginal gatheringoperations.

Some operators expressed concernthat gathering lines in rural areas wouldbecome regulated. No change in thedefinition of rural area is proposed, andrural gathering lines have been exceptedfrom regulation by statute. However, thePipeline Safety Act of 1992, Public LawNo. 102-508, which was enacted onOctober 24, 1992, allows regulation ofrural gathering lines. Therefore, certainrural gathering lines currently exceptedfrom regulation may be regulated in thefuture. In this NPRM, RSPA proposes toregulate low stress gathering lines onlyto the extent they are located inpopulated areas or offshore.

The ANPRM questionnaire requestedreports of pipelines within 220 yards ofpopulated areas, defined as areas otherthan rural areas under § 195.2.Currently, gathering lines in non-rural(populated) areas are subject to Part 195unless they are operated at low stress.The data reported indicate that somelow stress gathering lines aretransporting large volumes of hazardousliquids in populated areas. Someoperators suggested that no gatheringlines should be regulated but offerednothing to address the safety andenvironmental concerns about gatheringlines or a rationale for differenttreatment. RSPA proposes to regulatethose lengths of low stress levelgathering lines traversing populatedareas. Whether all gathering lines

12214

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

(regardless of their stress level),including those in populated areas,should be excepted from regulation isbeyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Some operators expressed concernthat incorporated political subdivisionsof state governments such as countiesand townships would be considered byregulation to be non-rural areas, andtherefore that gathering lines in suchareas would become regulated. Underthe definition in § 195.2, rural areameans outside the limits of anyincorporated or unincorporated city,town, or village, or any other designatedresidential or commercial area such asa subdivision, a business or shoppingcenter, or community development. Acounty, township, and similar politicalsubdivision is not the same as a city,town, or village. Therefore a gatheringline in a rural area of a county,township or similar politicalsubdivision is not intended to beregulated.

Comments confirmed RSPA's beliefthat low stress interfacility pipelinesused to move hazardous liquids to orfrom petrochemical facilities such asrefineries, manufacturing plants, andhazardous liquid terminals, arerelatively short. Low stress operation isadequate to move the liquid to or fromthe complex at the rate required foroperation. Design of such pipelinesfrequently is based on considerationsother than internal pressure, forexample, additional thickness toprovide rigidity or an allowance forexpected corrosion. The operators oflow stress interfacility lines usuallyhave not operated pipelines subject topart 195. and therbfore may not befamiliar with its requirements. Certaininterfacility pipelines will becomeregulated under the proposedrulemaking. Interfacility linesrepresented about 65 percent of thepipelines and 27 percent of the milesreported. Included in these interfacilitypipeline statistics are 891 pipelines (716miles) reported by one operator, Shell,of a total of 996 Interfacility pipelines(939 miles) reported.

In response to the ANPRM,commenters asked whether intrafacilitylines (in-plant piping) withinpetrochemical facilities and interfacilitylines (piping connecting facilities)crossing a common boundary or a singlepublic thoroughfare between adjacentproperties would be subject toregulation if the regulations werechanged. Intrafacility lines are exceptedfrom regulation In accordance with§ 195.1(b)(6). However, intrafacilitypiping connecting adjacent facilitiesseparated by navigable waterways orseparated by third party property other

than single public thoroughfares inpopulated areas would be subject to theregulations if the 20% SMYS exceptionis modified.

The data reported in response to theANPRM indicate that delivery lineswere a type of low stress pipeline notanticipated by RSPA prior to theANPRM. Comments by operatorsindicate that low stress delivery linestypically are short lines. The data for

ose reportid (105 lines, 126 miles)indicate an average length of about 1%mile. They represent a small portion ofthe lines affected by the proposedrulemaking, but generally they movelarge volumes of hazardous liquids. Ofall pipelines reported, delivery linesrepresent only about 7 percent of thelines and 4 percent of the miles. Theproposed rules would regulate many ofthese low stress delivery lines based ontheir transporting a highly volatileliquid or traversing a populated area ornavigable waterway. RSPA does notpropose a separate treatment for them.

Some operators expressed concernthat piping within storage or terminalfacilities would become regulated.Piping associated with breakout tanks atstorage facilities of regulated hazardousliquid pipelines currently is regulated,regardless of operating stress, if theliquids are reinjected and transportedfurther by a pipeline system that isregulated. Conversely, piping withindistribution and marketing terminalsexclusively transferring hazardousliquids between modes of transportationexcepted from regulation-under§ 195.1(b)(7).

Some operators explicitly includedthe cost to pressure test in theirestimates of the cost of compliance. Thetreatment of the cost of hydrostatictesting is covered in the regulatoryimpact analysis performed by VNTSC.

Some operators and one governmentrepresentative have suggested the use ofpneumatic testing (air under pressure)as a low cost alternative to hydrostatictesting (water under pressure). TheAmerican Society of MechanicalEngineers (ASME) Code for PressurePiping ASME B31.4-1989 Edition forLiquid Transportation Systems forHydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas,Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols(B31.4) permits the use of hydrostatic orpneumatic testing for pipelines to beoperated at a hoop stress of 20 percentor less of SMYS of the pipe. Part 192(Transportation of Natural and OtherGas by Pipeline: Minimum FederalSafety Standards) permits the use ofpneumatic tests as an alternative tohydrostatic tests. The use of pneumatictesting would eliminate the need tocollect and process the testing water

contaminated by residual contents ofthe pipeline. RSPA has not included aproposl to permit pneumatic testing of

azardous liquid pipelines. Commentsare invited on whether and to whatextent pneumatic testing should bepermitted in lieu of hydrostatic testing.

Some commenters claimed that thecost to bring low stress pipelines intocompliance and to operate the pipelinesin compliance with Part 195 is notcommensurate with the benefits ofregulation. The principal costs notedwere preparation and maintenance ofoperations and maintenance manuals,drug testing programs, pressuremonitoring equipment, cathodicprotection systems, and pressure testing.Some operators of low stress pipelinessuggest that, because of the cost, onlylow stress pipelines traversingpopulated areas, navigable waters, orenvironmentally sensitive areas shouldbe considered for regulation. Twogovernment commenters suppoitedremoving the blanket exception for lowstress pipelines, but argued for a limitedexception based on criteria such as age,length, location, and volumetransported. Two other governmentcommenters supported regulation of alllow stress pipelines.

RSPA carefully considered commentsthat suggested regulating low stresspipelines. The regulatory impactanalysis indicates that the benefits ofregulating all low stress pipelinessubstantially exceed the costs. At thistime, RSPA proposes regulating lowstress pipelines only on the basis of oneor more measures of risk as discussedbelow.

Several commenters discussed thelength of time needed to comply withregulations if the exception is deleted ormodified. Both 1 year and 5 years weresuggested as the time needed forcompliance. Comments are solicited asto whether one year would providesufficient time to bring newly regulatedlow stress pipelines into compliancewith parts 195 and 199.

A letter from Senator Lautenberg ofNew Jersey suggested that RSPA requirethat operators of low stress pipelinesapply to RSPA on an individual basis tocontinue the exception from regulationof individual low stress pipelines. TheSenator would require that operatorscertify initially and annually thereafterthe conditions justifying the exception.Since RSPA's proposal woulddiscontinue the exception for mosthigher risk pipelines, and there is anexisting method to obtain waiver fromregulation, RSPA plans no further actionon this comment.

12215

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

Proposal

RSPA proposes to revise § 195.1(b)(3)which excepts low stress pipelines fromregulation under Part 195 by exceptingfrom regulation only a low stresspipeline that is not used in thetransportation of a highly volatile liquidLr that does not traverse a populatedarea or a navigable waterway. RSPAdoes not propose to regulate low stresspipelines on the basis of any additionalcriteria. RSPA's proposed rule willreduce the risk to public safety and theenvironment and is supported by afavorable benefit/cost ratio determinedon the basis of data furnished byoperators of low stress hazardous liquidpipelines and published data onpipelines. This proposal was developedin response to recommendations fromthe National Association of PipelineSafety Representatives (NAPSR) and theSafety Review Task Force of theDepartment of Transportation (DOT). Italso is responsive to the delegation toRSPA following passage of the OilPollution Act of 1990 regardingprevention of spills and thecontainment of oil in pipelines. Thisdelegation concerns the prevention ofpollution of navigable waters,shorelines, and the exclusive economiczone. Finally, this proposal isresponsive to the amendment to section203(b) to the Hazardous Liquid PipelineSafety Act (HLPSA) made by section206 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.That amendment provides thatexception to regulation under theHLPSA shall not be based solely onoperation at low internal stress.

RSPA now proposes to regulate thelow stress pipelines which are used forthe transportation of highly volatileliquids or which traverse populatedareas or crossing navigable waterways.RSPA is deferring a decision on whetherto propose regulation of low stress linesin environmentally sensitive areasbecause that subject is being studied toevaluate the extent to which pipelinespills affect environmentally sensitiveareas and to develop a definition ofenvironmentally sensitive areasappropriate for pipeline regulation.

This proposal to regulate low stresspipelines that cross navigable waterswill assure that pipelines that could bestruck and damaged by vesseloperations, will not be excepted fromregulation. Low stress pipelines alsomay be located in water which is"navigable" under some definitions, butwhich is not navigable in fact. Becausethese pipelines are not at risk of beingdamaged by vessel operations, RSPAdoes not propose to regulate suchp; pelines at this time. They will be

considered for regulation when RSPAconsiders extension of the regulation oflow stress pipelines in environmentallysensitive areas.

Regardless of the stress at which theyare operated, pipelines are vulnerable todamage from the two principal causes ofpipeline failures-outside force damageand corrosion. Admittedly, pipelineswhich are operated at lower stressesmay survive damage from outside forceandcorrosion for a longer period beforefailure than will high stress pipelines,but the risk of failure is presentnevertheless. The December 1989 Exxonpipeline failure, which spilled oil intothe Arthur Kill waterway between NewYork and New Jersey at a cost of $45million, is an illustration of a spill froman unregulated low stress pipelinecaused by outside force damage. TheDecember 1986 Kinley pipeline failure,which spilled 5000 gallons of jet fuelinto surface and ground water in Iowaand has cost $273,000 to date, is anillustration of a spill from anunregulated low stress pipeline causedby corrosion.

Under the proposed rulemaking,RSPA would revise § 195.1(b)(3), whichnow excepts from regulation all lowstress pipelines, to regulate certain newand existing low stress pipelines.Existing pipelines that would bebrought under the regulations becauseof the modification of the exceptionwould be subject to Part 199 and allsubparts of Part 195 except Subparts C-Design Requirements, D-Construction,and E-Hydrostatic Testing, except thatSubpart E would apply only to lowstress pipelines used in thetransportation of a highly volatile liquid(HVL). The exception from the designand construction requirements iscovered by the proposed addition of§ 195.401(c)(5). Although therequirements of Subpart E--HydrostaticTesting currently would not apply tonon-HVL pipelines constructed beforedates specified in § 195.302, an NPRMpublished on May 22, 1991 (Docket No.PS-121; Notice 1; 56 FR 23538)proposes hydrostatic testing of thosepipelines at a pressure at least 25percent in excess of the maximumoperating pressure or, alternatively, acommensurate reduction of theoperating pressure. RSPA proposes thatthe testing rules proposed in PS-121Notice I would not apply to non-HVLlow stress pipelines that would becomesubject to Part 195 if§ 195.1(b)(3) ismodified as proposed in this NPRM.

All sections of parts 195 and 199would apply to regulated low stresspipelines constructed after the effectivedate of the issuance of a final rule. Theproposed modification of § 195.1(b)(3)

would not affect pipelines currentlyexcepted by other criteria in § 195.1(b).

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

Operators of pipelines currentlyexcepted under S 195.1(b)(3) arecautioned that proposed regulationsbeing considered now or in the futuremay apply to the operation of thosepipelines currently excepted under§ 195.1(b)(3), and are advised to followall notices pertaining to hazardousliquid pipeline regulation appearing inthe Federal Register.

Request for Comments

Comments may address any aspect ofthis proposal. However, RSPA requestsspecific comments on the following:Whether there should be separatetreatment in this rulemaking foreconomically marginal gathering lineoperations in non-rural areas and whatform such treatment should take;whether pneumatic testing of low stresspipelines should be permitted as analternative to hydrostatic testing undersubpart E; and whether one year wouldprovide sufficient time to comply withparts 195 and 199 to the extent theywould be made applicable.

Impact Assessment

These proposals would extend therequirements of parts 195 and 199 tocertain steel pipelines currentlyexcepted from regulation solely on thebasis of a low operating stress levelunder § 195.1(b)(3). Pipelinesconstructed prior to or underconstruction on the effective date of theproposed rule would be subject to all ofPart 195 except subparts C, D, and Ewhich apply respectively to design,construction, and hydrostatic testing.Operators have raised issues regardingthe cost of implementation, particularlyregarding the cost of implementation forgathering lines in areas other than ruralareas. Operators also have suggestedthat any change to the existingexception be limited to low stresspipelines in higher risk areas. Theproposed modification of theregulations is consistent with theseoperator comments.

From the responses to the ANPRM,the accident cost per mile per year onlow stress pipelines not operated inaccordance with those regulations wasestimated to be $3692. The accident costper mile per year on low stress pipelinesalready operated in accordance with thepipeline safety regulations wasestimated to be $105 per mile per year.Further, the five-year average cost of

iZZ16

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

accidents on high stress (regulated) linestaken from incident reports in OPS filesis similar to the costs for those lowstress lines operated in compliance withthe regulations. Therefore, RSPAF resumes that the cost of accidents onow 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 wasdistributed over ten years. RSPAconsiders this distribution periodequitable'because of the age of pipelinessystems in general, and because the costconsequences of accidents areincreasing rapidly as a consequence ofenvironmental considerations. Overall,the regulatory impact analysis indicatesa favorable benefit/cost ratio.

Regulatory Analyses and NoticesExecutive Order 12291 and DOTPolicies and Procedures

This proposed rule is considered to benon-major under Executive Order12291, and is not considered significantunder DOT Regulatory Policies andProcedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,1979). A Draft Regulatory Evaluationhas been prepared and is available inthe docket.

Paperwork Reduction ActThe reporting requirements in subpart

B and recordkeeping requirementsunder §§ 195.54, 195.55, 195.56, 195.57,195.234, 195.266, 195.310, 195.402, and195.404 are being submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) for review under the PaperworkReduction Act. Comments on thecollection of information should be sentto the Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Office ofManagement and Budget, Washington,DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer forthe Department of Transportation. Thissubmission would modify the currentapproval of pipeline recordkeeping andaccident reporting under OMB Nos.2137-0047, 2137-0578, and 2137-0583.The proposed regulation of certainpipelines operated at 20 percent or lessof SMYS would represent an increase ofabout 7100 additional pipeline milessubject to the reporting andrecordkeeping requirements in Part 195,or 5 percent more than the milescurrently subject to those requirements.RSPA estimates that burden hours forrecordkeeping and accident reportingwill increase a total of 2494 hours abovethe current burden of 55639 hours to58133 hours.

Regulatory Flexibility ActBased on the facts available about the

anticipated impact of this proposedrulemaking action, I certify, pursuant to

section 605 of the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 605), that the action willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities, because few, if any, smallentities operate pipelines subject to part195. Each operator responding to theANPRM reported that it was not a smallbusiness.

Executive Order 12612

RSPA has analyzed this action inaccordance with the principles andcriteria contained in E.O. 12612 (52 FR41685) and has determined that it doesnot have sufficient federalismimplications to warrant preparation of aFederalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

Ammonia, Carbon dioxide,Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Part 195-Transportation of HazardousLiquids by Pipeline

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

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

2. Section 195.1 would be amendedby revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(7),and adding paragraph (d) to read asfollows:

1195.1 Applicability.* It *t * *

(b)*(3) Transportation of a hazardous

liquid through a pipeline that isoperated at a stress level of 20 percentor less of the specified minimum yieldstrength of the line pipe, and that:

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

(ii) Does not traverse a populated area;or

(iii) Does not traverse a navigablewaterway.

(7) Transportation of a hazardousliquid or carbon dioxide by vessel,aircraft, tank truck, tank car, or othervehicle, or terminal facilities usedexclusively to transfer hazardous liquidsor carbon dioxide between such modesof transportation; and*t * *t * *

(d) The operator of a pipeline that wasexcepted from regulations prior to [dateof pubulication of the final rule will beinserted] on the basis of operation at astress level of 20 percent or less of thespecified minimum yield strength of theline pipe must comply with this part by[one year after the date of publication ofthe final rule will be inserted].

3. Section 195.2 would be amendedby adding in appropriate alphabeticalorder the followning definitions:

1195.2 Definitions.* *. " * *

Navigable waterway means awaterway which Is navigable in fact andis currently used for commercialnavigation.

Populated area means any onshorearea other than a rural area.* t *t *t *

4. Section 195.302 would be amendedby redesignating paragraph (c) asparagraph (d) and adding newparagraph (c) to read as follows:

1195.302 General requirements.*t . * *t

(c) After [one year after date ofpublication of the final rule will beinserted], no person may transport ahighly volatile liquid in a pipeline thatwas excepted from regulation under thispart prior to [date of publication of thefinal rule will be inserted] on the basisof operation at a stress level of 20percent or less of the specifiedminimum yield strength of the line pipeunless the pipeline has beenhydrostatically tested in accordancewith this subpart or its maximumoperating pressure has been establishedunder S 195.406(a) (6) or (7).

5. Section 195.401 would be amendedby adding paragraph (c)(5) to read asfollows:

§ 195.401 General requirements.(c) * * *(5) A pipeline not regulated on the

basis of operation at a stress level of 20percent or less of the specifiedminimum yield strength of the line pipeprior to [date of publication of the finalrule will be inserted] on whichconstruction was begun after [date ofpublication of the final rule will beinserted].

6. Section 195.406 would be amendedby adding paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) toread as follows:

§195.406 Maximum operating pressure.(a) * * *(6) In the case of a pipeline used for

the transportation of hazardous liquidsthat was not regulated prior to [date ofpublication of the final rule will beinserted] because it was operated at astress level of 20 percent or less of thespecified minumum yield strength ofthe line pipe and that was not testedunder subpart E of this part, 80 percentof the test pressure or 100 percent of thehighest operating pressure to which the

12217

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

pipeline was subjected for four or morecontinuous hours that can bedemonstrated by recording charts orlogs made at the time the test oroperations were conducted.

(7) In the case of a pipeline used forthe transportation of highly volatileliquids that was not regulated prior to[date of publication of the final rule willbe inserted] because it was operated at

a stress level of 20 percent or less of thespecified minimum yield strength of theline pipe and that was not tested undersubpart E of this part, 80 percent of thetest pressure or highest operatingpressure to which the pipeline wassubjected for four or more continuoushours that can be demonstrated byrecording charts or logs made at the

time the test or operations wereconducted.

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]

BILENO CODE 4010-40"

12218