[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53526-53528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23180]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. RSPA-97-2717; Amdt. 195-78]
RIN 2137-AD10
Pipeline Safety: Recommendations To Change Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Standards
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA)
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is changing several safety standards
for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. The changes, which
concern welder qualifications, backfilling, records, training, and
signs, are based on recommendations by the National Association of
Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR). RSPA/OPS believes the changes
will improve the clarity and effectiveness of the present standards.
DATES: This Final Rule takes effect October 14, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow by phone at 202-366-4559,
by fax at 202-366-4566, by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590, or by e-mail at
buck.furrow@rspa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from state agencies
that participate with RSPA/OPS in the Federal pipeline safety
regulatory program. RSPA/OPS asked NAPSR to review the hazardous liquid
pipeline safety standards in 49 CFR part 195 and recommend any changes
needed to make the standards more explicit, understandable, and
enforceable. NAPSR compiled the results of its review in a report
titled ``Part 195 Project.''
The report includes 30 different recommendations for changes to
Part 195, of which RSPA/OPS has adopted or proposed to adopt 18 in
earlier rulemaking actions. In the Federal Register of September 6,
2002, RSPA/OPS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in
which RSPA/OPS proposed to adopt five more recommendations (67 FR
56970). The NPRM also described the earlier actions and explained why
RSPA/OPS had declined to adopt seven recommendations.
Disposition of Comments
This section of the preamble summarizes the written comments RSPA/
OPS received in response to the NPRM. It also describes how RSPA/OPS
treated those comments in developing this Final Rule. If a proposed
section is not mentioned, no significant comments were received on that
section and RSPA/OPS is adopting it as final.
RSPA/OPS invited the public to comment by November 5, 2002, on
proposed changes to five sections in Part 195: Sec. 195.222, Welders:
Qualification of welders; Sec. 195.252, Backfilling; Sec. 195.310,
Records; Sec. 195.403, Training; and Sec. 195.434, Signs. The only
comments RSPA/OPS received were from the Florida Department of
Transportation ( FDOT) and the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (WUTC).
FDOT was concerned that part 195 could be construed to supersede
its more stringent requirements on backfilling and abandonment. For
example, FDOT said it does not allow abandonment of utility facilities,
whereas Sec. 195.402(c)(10) permits operators to abandon pipelines
under appropriate procedures. FDOT recommended that RSPA/OPS state in
Part 195 that the part does not supersede state requirements unless
those requirements are less stringent.
RSPA/OPS has not added this statement to part 195 because it may
not be in accord with the preemption provisions of Federal pipeline
safety law (49 U.S.C. 60104(c)). Those provisions prohibit state
agencies from establishing any safety standards for interstate pipeline
facilities. And although state agencies that meet certain requirements
may establish additional or more stringent safety standards for
intrastate pipeline facilities, the state standards must be compatible
with the federal safety standards. The preemption provisions do not
allow state agencies to establish less stringent safety standards for
intrastate pipeline facilities. To say that Part 195 does not supersede
state requirements unless they are less stringent would incorrectly
imply that states may have safety standards for interstate pipeline
facilities or may have less stringent standards for intrastate pipeline
facilities. In addition, such a statement would incorrectly imply that
Part 195 does not supersede a state agency's more stringent intrastate
standards that are incompatible with Part 195.
Having said this, RSPA/OPS does not want to leave the impression
that it considers FDOT's more stringent requirements on backfilling and
abandonment to be inoperative in view of the Federal preemption
provisions. As RSPA/OPS construes those provisions, they apply only to
generally applicable state safety standards. They do not apply to
safety requirements that a state or local agency may attach to specific
construction permits as a condition of exercising the permit. It is in
this vein that RSPA/OPS believes FDOT applies its more stringent
requirements.
WUTC generally supported the NPRM, but made specific comments on
the backfilling standard proposed in Sec. 195.252. RSPA/OPS proposed
that backfilling must provide firm support under the pipe and prevent
damage to the pipe and pipe coating from equipment and backfill
material. As explained in the NPRM, RSPA/OPS did not propose to adopt
NAPSR's recommendation that backfill material
[[Page 53527]]
not contain objects that could damage the pipe or pipe coating. RSPA/
OPS reasoned that such material may not always be available near
construction sites, and under the proposed standard, material with such
objects could only be used if damage is prevented by means such as a
sufficient initial layer of material that is free of potentially
damaging rocks. Nevertheless, WUTC was concerned that operators could
still use large rocks that could later cause damage to the pipe. WUTC
suggested that backfill material not contain either rocks larger than
six inches or organic material, such as wood, that may decay and cause
subsidence or erosion.
WUTC is correct that the proposed standard would not preclude
operators from using backfill material that contains large rocks.
However, to do so operators would have to take steps to insure that the
rocks do not damage the pipeline. RSPA/OPS said in the NPRM that one
means of protection is an initial layer of rock-free material. WUTC
implied that this method may not be adequate in the presence of large
rocks. If so, operators would have to use some other means of
protection. For example, they could install a durable rock shield
either by itself or in addition to a layer of rock-free material.
Because reasonable means are available to protect against rock damage,
RSPA/OPS does not think a restrictive standard like WUTC suggested is
necessary for safety. The performance nature of proposed Sec. 195.252
would also require operators to take protective action if backfill
material contains enough organic material to cause damage through
subsequent decay. Therefore, RSPA/OPS has adopted proposed Sec.
195.252 as final.
Advisory Committee Consideration
The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(THLPSSC) considered the NPRM and the associated evaluation of costs
and benefits at a meeting in Washington, DC on March 25, 2003 (68 FR
11176; March 7, 2003). The committee is a statutorily mandated advisory
committee that advises us on proposed safety standards and other
policies for hazardous liquid pipelines. The committee has an
authorized membership of 15 persons, five each representing government,
industry, and the public. Each member is qualified to consider the
technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and
practicability of proposed pipeline safety standards. A transcript of
the meeting as well as other material related to the committee's
consideration of the NPRM are available in Docket No. RSPA-98-4470.
At the meeting, the THLPSSC voted on whether the proposed rules are
technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable, and
whether the evaluation of costs and benefits is satisfactory. The
THLPSSC voted unanimously to approve the proposed rules and the
evaluation.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures. RSPA/OPS
does not consider this rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action
under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4,
1993). Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
received a copy of this rulemaking to review. RSPA/OPS also does not
consider this rulemaking to be significant under DOT regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).
RSPA/OPS prepared a Regulatory Evaluation of the final rules and a
copy is in the docket. The evaluation concludes there should be only
minimal additional cost, if any, for operators to comply with the
rules. No comments were received on the draft evaluation that
accompanied the NPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The final rules are consistent with customary practices in the
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline industry. Therefore, based
on the facts available about the anticipated impacts of this
rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13084
The final rules have been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.''
Because the rules will not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal governments and will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline
Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting Requirements. OMB Number: 2137-
0047
Summary: Section 195.310(b)(10) adds minor information collection
requirements to an already existing information collection requirement.
Operators are required to record the temperature during testing and
keep the records for as long as the pipeline concerned is in service.
However, RSPA/OPS believes most operators already maintain records of
temperature. Also, RSPA/OPS believes the burden of retaining
temperature records is minimal. These records are largely computerized.
Maintaining these records on a floppy disk or computer file represents
very minimal costs. Because the additional paperwork burdens of this
rule are likely to be minimal, RSPA/OPS believes that submitting an
analysis of the burdens to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act is
unnecessary.
Use: Records are kept to help RSPA/OPS determine compliance with
pipeline safety requirements.
Respondents (including the number of): There are 200 hazardous
liquid pipeline operators that could potentially be subject to this
rule.
Annual Burden Estimate: 51,011 hours per year.
Frequency: Variable.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rulemaking proceeding.
National Environmental Policy Act
RSPA/OPS has analyzed the final rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Because the final
rule parallels present requirements or practices, RSPA/OPS has
determined that the rule will not significantly affect the quality of
the human environment. An environmental assessment document is
available for review in the docket.
Executive Order 13132
The final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). The
rule does not establish any regulation that (1) has substantial direct
effects on the States, the relationship between the national government
and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts state
law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive
Order 13132 do not apply.
[[Page 53528]]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, RSPA/OPS amends 49 CFR part
195 as follows:
PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
0
1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.
0
2. Amend Sec. 195.222 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate the existing text as paragraph (a); and
0
b. Add paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.222 Welders: Qualification of welders.
* * * * *
(b) No welder may weld with a particular welding process unless,
within the preceding 6 calendar months, the welder has--
(1) Engaged in welding with that process; and
(2) Had one weld tested and found acceptable under Section 6 of API
1104.
0
3. Revise Sec. 195.252 to read as follows:
Sec. 195.252 Backfilling.
When a ditch for a pipeline is backfilled, it must be backfilled in
a manner that:
(a) Provides firm support under the pipe; and
(b) Prevents damage to the pipe and pipe coating from equipment or
from the backfill material.
0
4. Amend Sec. 195.310 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(8);
0
b. Remove the period at the end of paragraph (b)(9) and add ``; and''
in its place; and
0
c. Add paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.310 Records.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) Temperature of the test medium or pipe during the test period.
0
5. Revise Sec. 195.403(a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.403 Training.
(a) * * *
(5) Learn the potential causes, types, sizes, and consequences of
fire and the appropriate use of portable fire extinguishers and other
on-site fire control equipment, involving, where feasible, a simulated
pipeline emergency condition.
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec. 195.434 to read as follows:
Sec. 195.434 Signs.
Each operator must maintain signs visible to the public around each
pumping station and breakout tank area. Each sign must contain the name
of the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the
operator can be reached at all times.
Issued in Washington, DC on September 2, 2003.
Samuel G. Bonasso,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-23180 Filed 9-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P