[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 96 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28833-28843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9464]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. RSPA-03-15852; Amdt. Nos. 192-100, 195-84]
RIN 2137-AD96
Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Operator Public Awareness Program
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Final Rule amends the requirements for pipeline operators
to develop and implement public awareness (also known as public
education) programs. The changes are part of PHMSA's \1\ Office of
Pipeline Safety's (OPS) broad pipeline communications initiative to
promote pipeline safety. Promoting pipeline safety requires enhanced
communications (by pipeline operators) with the public to increase
public awareness of pipeline operations and safety issues. The
amendments for developing and implementing public awareness programs
address the requirements of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA)
of 2002 \2\ and incorporate by reference the guidelines provided in the
American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162,
``Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was
recently renamed the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). The history of this rulemaking includes
references to both RSPA and PHMSA. For the purposes of this
document, the terms are used interchangeably.
\2\ Section 5 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-55, 49 U.S.C. 60116, December 12, 2002).
\3\ API RP 1162 provides guidance on development,
implementation, and evaluation of pipeline operator ``public
awareness programs.'' Note that ``public education programs,'' as
used in this rule, and ``public awareness programs,'' as used in API
RP 1162, are considered to be the same and are used interchangeably.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule takes effect on June 20, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of API RP 1162 in this Final Rule
was approved by Director of the Federal Register as of June 20, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener by phone at
202.366.0970, by mail at 400 7th St., SW., Room 2103, Washington, DC
20590, or by e-mail at blaine.keener@dot.gov.
[[Page 28834]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This Final Rule concerns pipeline efforts to improve public
awareness of pipeline operations and safety issues through enhanced
communications with:
The public (including residents and places of
congregation, such as businesses, schools, hospitals, prisons, and
other places where people gather) in the pipeline vicinity and its
associated rights-of-way and pipeline facilities;
State and local emergency response and planning officials
(e.g., State and county emergency management agencies (EMAs) and local
emergency planning committees (LEPCs)) and first responder
organizations;
Local public officials and governing councils of affected
municipalities and school districts; and
Excavators.
Effective public awareness programs are vital to continued safe
pipeline operations. Such programs are an important factor in
establishing communications with affected stakeholders, providing
information necessary to enhance public awareness of pipelines, and
communicating stakeholder roles relative to pipeline safety. Effective
programs also can increase awareness and understanding of the important
energy transportation role of pipelines, pipeline operations,
associated public and environmental risks, and the preventive and
mitigative steps taken to reduce those risks. Additionally, they can
improve results in damage prevention, reduce encroachments on pipeline
rights-of-way, improve pipeline safety and environmental performance,
and enhance emergency response coordination.
This change in requirements for pipeline operator public awareness
programs is part of PHMSA's broad effort to enhance safety by promoting
improved public communications among the pipeline industry and
government pipeline regulators. The promulgation of new requirements
for pipeline operator public awareness programs also responds to
provisions in the PSIA of 2002 calling for the Secretary of
Transportation to issue standards prescribing the elements of an
effective public education program.
Statutory Considerations & Comments
The statutory provision specific to public education is discussed
elsewhere in this document. In general, OPS authority to issue safety
standards to the design, construction, operation, replacement, and
maintenance of pipelines is found in 49 U.S.C. 60102(a). Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 60102(b), a pipeline safety standard must be practicable and
designed to meet the need for pipeline safety and for protection of the
environment. In order to accomplish this, OPS must consider a number of
factors in issuing a safety standard. These factors include the
relevant available pipeline safety and environmental information, the
appropriateness of the standard for the particular type of facility,
the reasonableness of the standard, and reasonably identifiable or
estimated costs and benefits.
OPS considered these factors in developing this rule and provides
its analysis in the appropriate paragraphs of the preamble to this
Final Rule. OPS also considered comments received from the public along
with comments and recommendations of the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee that are discussed below.
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
On December 17, 2002, the President signed into law the PSIA of
2002. Section 5 mandates public education program activities by
pipeline operators, the Secretary of Transportation, and appropriate
State agencies. It requires owners or operators of a gas or hazardous
liquid pipeline facility to carry out a continuing program to educate
the public on:
Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation
and other damage prevention activities;
Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from
the pipeline facility;
Physical indications that such a release may have
occurred;
Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event
of a pipeline release; and
Procedures to report such an event.
Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment, each owner or
operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility was to review
its existing public education program(s) for effectiveness and modify
the program as necessary. The completed program was to include
activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts,
businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations. It was to be
submitted to the Secretary or, the appropriate State agency, and would
be periodically reviewed. The Secretary was authorized to issue
standards prescribing the elements of an effective public education
program and to develop material for program use.
Self-Assessment Forms
To support pipeline operators in partially addressing the PSIA
requirements, PHMSA prepared a self-assessment form for use in
reviewing existing public education programs. The completed self-
assessment aided and supported the operator in reviewing its program
and in determining whether its adequacy and effectiveness in conveying
the messages defined in the PSIA to the appropriate audiences. This
assessment served as the basis for individual operators to define any
necessary program improvements. The aggregate results of the self-
assessments help PHMSA and the industry in identifying areas where
operator programs overall are weak or in need of additional focus.
A draft self-assessment form was presented to attendees at two
public workshops held during September 2003, in Houston, Texas and
Baltimore, Maryland for comment. In November 2003, PHMSA issued an
advisory bulletin \4\ advising all pipeline operators to complete and
return the self-assessment form by December 17, 2003 (the deadline
prescribed in the PSIA). Aggregate results from those self-assessments
may be viewed online at http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/RP1162/SA_
Statistics_050704.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 68 FR 66155, November 25, 2003, Pipeline Safety: Self-
Assessment of Public Education Programs. This advisory bulletin may
be viewed at http://ops.dot.gov/whatsnew/AdvBulletinADB0308.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA is promulgating this Final Rule requiring operators to submit
their completed programs to the Secretary of Transportation in
fulfillment and implementation of PSIA's Section 5 requirements. In
setting forth new requirements for pipeline operator public awareness
programs, PHMSA is also responding to provisions in Paragraph C,
AStandards,'' of Section 5 of the PSIA for the Secretary of
Transportation to issue standards prescribing the elements of an
effective public education program.
Standards Committees Process
PHMSA has two legislatively mandated technical advisory committees.
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 required establishment of
the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC). The
Hazardous Liquid Safety Act of 1979 required creation of the Technical
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC). The
Committees' primary purpose is to review proposed pipeline safety
standards for technical feasibility,
[[Page 28835]]
reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability. The Committees
also serve as a sounding board for discussing pipeline safety policy
issues as well as legislative initiatives. Each group is composed of a
balanced representation of Federal, State and local government
agencies, the pipeline industry, and the public. In 2000, PHMSA (then
known as the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)),
sponsored a pipeline communications exploratory group under its
technical advisory committees. The groups met to explore the subject of
pipeline communications and to identify opportunities for improvement.
In December 2004, the two groups concurred with this rule's issuance.
Communications Efforts
PHMSA increased its efforts to communicate with the public
regarding pipeline safety during several regulatory public meetings on
Liquid and Gas Pipeline Integrity Management and Operator Qualification
(see Docket Nos. RSPA-99-6355, RSPA-00-7408, and RSPA-00-7666). These
efforts also included public meetings and public-access Web sites.
These meetings provided opportunities for the public and other
stakeholders to comment on the pipeline information needs of the
public, local officials, and emergency responders.
PHMSA sponsored other public meetings to provide open forums for
the exchange of pipeline safety information among PHMSA, community
representatives, environmental organizations, first responders, city/
county/state governments, and pipeline operators. Public stakeholders
often expressed their desire to receive more specific information on
pipeline communication initiatives.
Consequently, on January 29, 2003, PHMSA and the Washington State
Utilities and Transportation Committee (WUTC) co-sponsored a public
meeting on pipeline communications at the Bellevue Community College in
Bellevue, WA. The meeting included panel discussions on current PHMSA
initiatives, the development of API RP 1162, integrity management
communications, and pipeline performance metrics. A meeting transcript
and a copy of presentations can be found at http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/
comm/Bellevue_2003_01_29.htm.
PHMSA public communication initiatives include:
Development of a public Web site for pipeline information
(http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/comm);
Creation of the Community Assistance and Technical
Services (CATS) program and staffing new positions within each PHMSA
Pipeline Safety regional office. CATS is an innovative program designed
to meet the growing demand for enhanced stakeholder communications and
to help facilitate permitting processes related to pipeline safety. The
CATS mission is to advance public safety, environmental protection, and
pipeline reliability by facilitating clear communications among all
pipeline stakeholders, including the public, the operators, and
government officials;
Established a partnership with the National Association of
State Fire Marshals (NASFM) to provide resources. This includes
developing information and training aimed at enhancing the safety of
first responders responding to pipeline accidents and of those
assessing pipeline security risks. This collaboration will: assure that
firefighters can safely respond to pipeline incidents; encourage NASFM
members to join with the damage prevention community; encourage
industry and local officials to ensure pipeline safety; educate the
public on how to live safely near pipelines; improve pipeline awareness
and improve security preparedness; and help with accident reporting and
investigation for a better understanding of causes and consequences;
In 2002, PHMSA asked the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) of the National Academies to examine model land use practices by
local communities, with an objective to develop guidance and enhance
communications to better manage pipeline encroachment risks. The TRB
was asked to: Examine evidence of risks to the public with increased
development and population in proximity to pipelines; understand how
these risks vary based on differences in product, pipeline
characteristics, and other features; and explore the feasibility of
establishing development setbacks that local governments might use in
regulating encroaching development around existing pipelines. The TRB
study was subsequently modified to address a PSIA requirement that
PHMSA and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conduct a
study of population encroachment on pipeline rights-of-way. The results
of the TRB study are published in TRB Special Report 281,
``Transmission Pipelines and Land Use: A Risk-Informed Approach.''
PHMSA submitted an implementation plan to Congress on January 10, 2005;
it addresses the TRB recommendations made in SR 281;
In 1988, the TRB published Special Report (SR) 219:
Pipelines and Public Safety. It assessed the adequacy of measures used
to protect the public near pipelines. TRB SR 219 examined land use
adjacent to pipelines and methods that could be used to increase the
public safety. PHMSA responded to recommendations for damage
prevention, land use, and emergency preparedness measures designed to
help reduce the risks due to pipeline accidents;
In 1998, PHMSA initiated and sponsored a damage prevention
practices study associated with existing one-call notification systems.
The study responded to authorizations in the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21), signed into law on June 9, 1998. It
examined damage prevention practices to determine which were most
effective in protecting the public, excavators, and the environment,
and preventing disruptions to public services and underground
facilities. Results were reported in the landmark ``Common Ground Study
of One Call Systems and Damage Prevention Best Practices'' in which 133
damage prevention Best Practices were identified; and
Prior to passage of the PSIA of 2002, the pipeline
industry began developing recommendations for pipeline operator public
awareness programs, which resulted in establishing the API RP 1162,
``Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators.'' API developed RP
1162 with extensive collaboration with various segments of the pipeline
industry along with input from PHMSA and State pipeline regulators.
PHMSA aggressively promoted the development of API RP 1162.\5\ PHMSA
acknowledges the substantial work and collaboration that went into the
development of API RP 1162 by incorporating it by reference into this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A link to API RP 1162 on the API standards Web site is at
http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/rp1162.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1162
In 2001, API began developing a new recommended practice for
hazardous liquid pipeline operator public awareness programs. PHMSA
recognized the potential to support the recommended practice its
efforts to promote safety through improved public education and
communications. At the request of, and with the support of PHMSA, API
expanded the scope of the recommended practice to include gas
transmission and distribution operators.
[[Page 28836]]
This was accomplished through formation of a multi-industry task force
including representation from hazardous liquid, gas transmission, and
gas distribution pipeline operators, as well as trade organizations
representing the individual industry segments. Representatives of PHMSA
and the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR)
(representing State pipeline regulatory agencies) participated in
meetings and provided input into both the development process and the
content of the document known as API RP 1162. From the beginning of the
process, PHMSA indicated to the task force and at public meetings that
it would consider incorporating the guidance provided in RP 1162 within
its planned rulemaking on operator public education programs.
The development of API RP 1162 complies with API Procedures for
Standards Development, as approved by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). More information on the development of RP 1162 and on
API procedures can be found online at http://committees.api.org/
pipeline/standards/index.html. Stakeholders had opportunities to
provide comment during the document's development; this information is
available in the docket.
Industry trade organizations representing pipeline operators
generally agreed with the direction of PHMSA and the work of the API RP
1162 task force. In response, several trade organizations issued a
Joint Statement on Enhancing Public Awareness Programs for the Pipeline
Industry (May 28, 2003), which committed the industry to adopting ``* *
* a consensus standard establishing a baseline public awareness program
for pipeline operators * * *'' and urged PHMSA ``* * * to satisfy any
need to supplement current requirements for public awareness programs
by incorporating [API] RP 1162 into its regulations * * *.'' Executives
from leading industry associations and organizations signed the joint
statement.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On June 24, 2004, PHMSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) with request for comment (68 FR 35279), with comment period
closing on August 23, 2004. PHMSA proposed to require each operator of
a hazardous liquid or gas pipeline to develop, implement, and maintain
a public education program compliant with the requirements of API RP
1162. The proposal applied to all pipelines regulated under 49 CFR
Parts 192 and 195, including:
Interstate and intrastate hazardous liquid transmission
pipelines;
Interstate and intrastate natural gas transmission
pipelines;
Natural gas distribution pipelines; and
Oil and gas gathering lines.
PHMSA proposed that operators be required to develop and implement
public awareness programs addressing specific stakeholder audiences.
PHMSA noted that API RP 1162 provides program guidance for each
audience regarding the types of messages to be delivered, the message
delivery frequency, and the methods/media to deliver the message. API
RP 1162 includes baseline program guidance applicable throughout the
operator's pipeline system. It also includes supplemental guidance
providing considerations to determine where, when, and how to enhance
the baseline program to provide the appropriate level of public
awareness outreach. Baseline and supplemental program recommendations
for different pipeline operator types are summarized in a set of tables
in API RP 1162. Additionally, the document provides that each operator
establish and periodically update a written public education program
covering all specified program elements.
II. Comment Discussion
In response to the NPRM, PHMSA received written comments from:
Pipeline operator companies (21); pipeline industry trade associations
(8); the Gas Pipeline Technical Committee (GPTC); third-party vendors
to the pipeline industry (2); members of the public (7); and the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, a state pipeline
safety regulatory agency.
Industry comments were received from: American Gas Association
(AGA); American Petroleum Institute (API); American Association of Oil
Pipelines (AOPL); American Public Gas Association (APGA); Atmos Energy;
Burrton, KS, Municipal Gas Distribution (Jon Roberts); Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation; Duke Energy Field Services; Dynegy Midstream
Services L.P.; El Paso Corporation; Enbridge Energy Company, Inc.; Gas
Piping Technology Committee (GPTC); KeySpan Energy; Kinder Morgan Inc.;
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (MichCon); Nicor Gas; NiSource Energy
Service Company; Paiute Pipeline (Southwest Gas Corporation); PECO;
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company; Pipeline Association for Public
Awareness; PSEG Services Corporation; Southern California Gas Company
and San Diego Gas and Electric; Southern Union Co.; Southwest Gas
Corporation; Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P.; Texas Oil and Gas
Association (TxOGA); Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
(INGAA); Texas Pipeline Association; and Xcel Energy.
Third-party vendors to the pipeline industry submitting comments
include Oleksa & Associates and Metrix Matrix Inc. Organizations and
individuals representative of the public who submitted comments
include: The Pipeline Safety Trust; the Washington State Citizens
Committee on Pipeline Safety; and five individuals.
Commenters overall were supportive of the need for pipeline
operators to conduct and manage effective public awareness/education
programs, acknowledging that such programs were vital to the safe
operation of oil and gas pipelines. Commenters were generally
supportive of the proposal to incorporate API RP 1162 by reference into
rule. However, some commenters opposed the proposed approach of
incorporating API RP 1162 in toto as a regulatory requirement, as
described in the NPRM. These along with many others offered particular
comments or suggested alternatives. Some commenters considered that the
proposed rule does not go far enough in requiring operators to provide
specific other information that is outside the current scope of the
proposed rule, or did not require a broad enough outreach to the
general public.
The comments, discussed below, have been categorized as follows:
A. Need for the Rule.
B. Incorporation of API RP 1162 In Toto as a Regulatory Requirement.
C. ``Awareness'' versus ``Education'.
D. Inspection, Enforcement, and Compliance.
1. Inspection Program.
2. Cooperative Efforts.
3. Implementation.
4. Evaluation Frequency.
5. Submission Periods.
E. Scope of the New Rule.
1. Information Breadth.
2. Rule Overlap.
3. Emergency Response Plans.
F. Resource Requirements.
A. The Need for a Rule on Pipeline Operator Public Education Programs
Several commenters opposed the adoption of API RP 1162 into a new
rule based on the thought that there is no need for a new rule on
public education at all. Two commenters stated that existing rules (49
CFR 192.614, 192.615, and 192.616) are adequate. One noted that those
existing rules should be more
[[Page 28837]]
effectively enforced. Another commenter opposed the proposed rule since
the PSIA of 2002 was ``clear and unambiguous'' and that requiring
operators to have effective public awareness programs through further
regulation would be counterproductive. This and other commenters noted
that the PSIA does not require DOT to develop standards prescribing the
elements of public education programs. Another commenter opposed
incorporating API RP 1162 into regulations until it has a chance to
mature as operators implement it into their procedures.
Response
PHMSA recognizes that operators should have existing public
education programs under the current regulations requiring operators to
conduct damage prevention programs (Sec. 192.614 and Sec. 195.442),
establish emergency plans and maintain liaison with emergency officials
(Sec. 192.615 and Sec. 195.402), and conduct public education
programs (Sec. 192.616 and Sec. 195.440). However, PHMSA considers
that these current regulations are limited in scope and specificity.
Additionally, the results of operator self-assessments and public
meetings revealed that some operators do not have adequate public
education programs and are in need of specific guidance to comply.
The broadened scope and added specificity provided in the guidance
presented in API RP 1162 will be of significant benefit. Increased
public awareness obtained through enhanced operator public education
programs is expected to result in fewer pipeline accidents from third-
party damage and improved emergency response if pipeline accidents do
occur. On this basis, pipeline industry organizations have already
endorsed the incorporation by reference of API RP 1162 into new
regulatory requirements for pipeline operator public education
programs.
Finally, the PSIA demonstrates Congressional intent and provides
that DOT may issue standards prescribing elements of effective public
education programs for pipeline operators. This rulemaking will assist
operators in complying with Congressional mandates. PHMSA considers
development and implementation of public education programs consistent
with the guidance provided in API RP 1162 as enabling pipeline
operators and regulators to evaluate operator programs for compliance
and effectiveness. We believe the guidance will enable operators to
determine where and how public awareness programs need to be modified
to ensure their effectiveness.
B. Incorporation of API RP 1162 In Toto as a Regulatory Requirement
Eight commenters, including APGA, AGA, and GPTC, opposed the rule
as proposed on the basis that API RP 1162 should not be incorporated in
its entirety and its guidance and recommendations should not be
translated into requirements. Eleven other commenters, including API,
AOPL, and INGAA expressed their support for the proposed rule and
support for PHMSA's intent to incorporate API RP 1162 by reference.
However, these commenters also cautioned that the effort was not
developed, nor was it intended, as a requirements document. They noted
that PHMSA should clarify specifically what is required of operators
and that API RP 1162 should be referenced as Aguidance material only.''
These commenters noted that PHMSA should ensure that the
flexibility afforded operators to develop and implement effective
public awareness programs according to their needs and unique system
parameters, as was intended in API RP 1162, is retained. Their comments
address the perception that API RP 1162 is a recommended practice
providing guidance affording an operator flexibility to develop an
optimum public awareness program, through the use of enabling words
such as ``should,'' ``might,'' ``could,'' ``may,'' and ``can.'' They
consider that such flexibility will be lost if RP 1162 is incorporated
in toto into a rule. Concern exists that the guidance and
recommendations would translate into requirements as those enabling
words morph, through interpretation, into the prescriptive ``shall.''
More than one commenter noted they realized this perception in the
NPRM preamble language which conveyed that the guidance of API RP 1162
was to become requirements to which operators must comply. At least
three commenters quoted or paraphrased the preamble to the NPRM in
support of this perception. The commenters noted that the NPRM stated:
``The rule requires each pipeline operator to develop * * * a public
education program that complies with the requirements of API RP 1162 *
* *. API RP 1162 defines requirements * * * including baseline
requirements * * * and supplemental requirements * * *. Operators are
required to consider* * *.'' Multiple commenters noted that the
proposed rule will make mandatory every guidance recommendation in API
RP 1162 and that this will remove all flexibility for operators written
into the practice and that will have a negative impact on operator
public awareness programs. Several commenters also noted that this will
lead to confusion among operators and regulators alike about what is
enforceable and what is not.
The APGA and the AGA both noted that PHMSA should reiterate its
discussion published in 64 FR 15929, April 2, 1999, of how consensus
standards, recommended practices, and publications are incorporated by
reference. PHMSA considers that when an industry recommended practice
is incorporated by reference into regulation, operators ``would be
expected to follow the provisions [of the recommended practice] unless
the operator notes in the procedural manual the reasons why compliance
with all or certain provisions is not necessary * * *.''
Response
PHMSA recognizes that adoption of recommended practices into
regulation can cause some concern as the distinction between
requirements and recommendations is not always clear. Under this rule,
each operator is required to develop and implement a public awareness
program consistent with the guidance provided in API RP 1162. The
operator's program must include all applicable elements of API RP 1162
that are baseline, or the operator must document the rationale and
justification for why those elements are not included in its program.
The operator must also document consideration as to the supplemental
elements of RP 1162 and provide the basis for program inclusion or
exclusion of those elements. The Appendices to RP 1162 are intended to
provide additional information, clarification, and examples relative to
the guidance provided in the practice.
There is no intent that every occurrence of ``should,'' ``may,'' or
``can'' found in API RP 1162 be translated to ``shall'' as a result of
incorporation of the practice by reference into the rule. As noted by
APGA and AGA, PHMSA previously expressed \6\ its position regarding
operator consideration of practices that are incorporated into
regulation by reference. The Final Rule is consistent with that
position; operators will have to follow the provisions of the practice
unless the operator notes in its procedural manual the reasons why
compliance with all or certain provisions of the practice is
circumstantially unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Reference 64 FR 15929, April 2, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28838]]
In addition to developing public awareness programs reflecting
consideration of the provisions of API RP 1162, under the PSIA of 2002,
those operator programs shall specifically: Include provisions to
educate the public on the use of a one-call notification system prior
to excavation and other damage prevention activities; identify possible
hazards associated with unintended releases from the pipeline facility;
identify physical indications that such a release may have occurred;
outline the steps that should be taken for public safety in the event
of a pipeline release; and outline the steps on how to report such an
event. The programs shall include activities to advise affected
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations.
C. ``Awareness'' Versus ``Education''
Several commenters suggested there was a distinction between public
``awareness'' as used in API RP 1162 and public ``education'' as used
in the proposed rule. They proposed that PHMSA should clarify that the
two terms refer to the same program obligation. One commenter said the
use of `awareness' is an ``improvement over `education' in that
`awareness'' implies two-way communication instead of the one-way
communication implied by `education.' ''
Response
PHMSA considers ``public education programs,'' as used in the PSIA,
and ``public awareness programs,'' as used in API RP 1162, to address
the same concept. The level of public awareness regarding pipeline
operations and safety can be improved only through demonstratively
effective education and communication programs.
D. Inspection, Enforcement, and Compliance
1. Inspection Programs
Several commenters, including API, AOPL, Kinder-Morgan, and
Enbridge, commented that PHMSA should consider using a centralized
group to perform operator inspections and enforcement for the new rule
rather than handling inspection and enforcement through separate field
organizations. This, they noted, would allow PHMSA to designate and
train a more specialized group of inspectors and would promote a more
consistent approach in the interpretations of many aspects of API RP
1162 that are not prescriptive in nature. Some commenters used the
analogy of PHMSA's integrity management approach wherein teams composed
of inspectors from across different regions were used to inspect
operators against program criteria.
Response
PHMSA will develop criteria to evaluate operator public awareness
programs against the requirements of this rule. The use of a standard
set of criteria will facilitate consistent requirements interpretations
and operator program evaluations.
PHMSA is considering the use of an approach wherein a third-party
contractor would serve as a clearinghouse. The contractor would perform
the initial reviews of operator programs against pre-defined criteria
for completeness and minimal adequacy. This third-party review would
utilize a checklist approach to identify if operator programs included
all of the elements of a fully-developed program consistent with the
rule and with the guidance provided in API RP 1162. The results of such
third-party reviews would be used to identify where best to use PHMSA
inspector resources in inspecting particular operator programs in
further detail in the field. One PHMSA emphasis is on building
effective programs; consideration is being given to having the third-
party contractor work interactively with operators, where appropriate,
to establish a more fully-developed program.
2. Cooperative Efforts
Several commenters suggested PHMSA should provide clear direction
to operators regarding the acceptability of cooperative or coalition
efforts. These comments address the possibility that operators may want
to join together cooperatively to achieve cost-effectiveness in
outreach efforts along common rights-of-way or within geographic areas.
Similarly, AGA and Southwest Gas Corporation noted that operators
having transmission and distribution facilities within the same
geographic area should have the flexibility to design either separate
or common programs for those facilities. These comments pose the
possibility that some operators may want to take advantage of surveys
and evaluations performed by trade associations and others to
demonstrate the effectiveness of their own outreach efforts.
Response
API RP 1162 provides general ``baseline'' program recommendations
for the audiences, message content, and communication frequencies that
operators should consider in the development and implementation of
their public awareness programs. It also provides supplemental guidance
that should be considered for use in particular situations where it is
appropriate to enhance the baseline program. It does not specify
details of how each operator is to achieve effective public awareness
nor does it attempt to suggest which approach would be most effective
in all cases. Rather, API RP 1162 specifically notes that it does not
take into consideration the unique attributes and characteristics of
individual pipeline operators' pipelines and facilities. Neither is
PHMSA, in incorporating API RP 1162 by reference into this rule,
attempting to define the method or approach operators must use (or not
use) to achieve effective programs.
Each operator must consider the unique characteristics of its
pipelines and facilities, including their geographic location and
proximity to other facilities. Operators must then determine the
methods and approach that will achieve the best results in ensuring
that educational outreach efforts reach those audiences that may be
affected by, and should be aware of, the operator's facilities.
Similarly, operators must choose the most appropriate methods for
evaluating program effectiveness. As noted in Section 8.4.2 of API RP
1162, an operator may choose to participate in and use the results of
surveys performed by others to evaluate the effectiveness of its
program. The operator is cautioned that surveys performed by others
must allow the operator to demonstrate results relevant to the
operator's own facilities and public awareness program.
3. Implementation
Several commenters noted that operators should be allowed from one
to two years following publication of the Final Rule to develop and
implement public education programs to meet the rule requirements. Some
stated this time would be necessary for operators to ensure programs
are fully compliant with the new regulation and to develop a schedule
for implementation consistent with their annual budget cycles.
Response
Operators should have in place some level of existing public
awareness/education programs under current regulations requiring
operators to conduct damage prevention programs (Sec. 192.614 and
Sec. 195.442), to establish emergency plans and maintain liaison with
emergency officials (Sec. 192.615 and Sec. 195.402), and to conduct
public
[[Page 28839]]
education programs (Sec. 192.616 and Sec. 195.440). However, PHMSA
recognizes that the additional efforts necessary to evaluate and
further develop those programs, (consistent with this rule and the
guidance provided in API RP 1162), and the efforts necessary to begin
implementation of the enhanced programs, may take longer for some
operators than others. Accordingly, operators must be prepared to
submit for review their completed programs to the Secretary of
Transportation or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility
operator, the appropriate State agency, no later than 12 months
following the publication date of the rule. As an exception, operators
of small liquid propane distribution systems having less than 25
customers and master meter operators having less than 25 customers must
be prepared to submit their completed programs to the appropriate
regulatory agency for review no later than 24 months following the
publication date of the rule. PHMSA encourages electronic submission of
operator programs. Specific guidance regarding the exact timing and
procedures for such submission will be provided in a future regulatory
notice. Operator program documentation and evaluation results must be
available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.
4. Evaluation Frequency
Several commenters noted that the rule should specify the frequency
by which operators are required to evaluate their public awareness
programs for effectiveness. The Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (WUTC) considered that it is important in the early stages
of implementing improved public education programs that operators
conduct effectiveness reviews at least every two years, if not
annually. WUTC noted that only by emphasizing results could the
flexibility of the guidelines provided by API RP 1162 be retained while
ensuring that operator programs are effectively reaching intended
audiences. Others cautioned that it may be difficult for operators to
draw a direct cause-and-effect relationship between enhanced public
outreach and improved performance in damage prevention or emergency
response. Some commented that it is important for operators to
establish a baseline evaluation of their programs before making
changes.
Response
PHMSA believes strongly that program evaluation is a key component
for improving the effectiveness of operator public education programs
and for improving pipeline safety awareness. Prior to the development
of the industry standard API RP 1162, pipeline operators were required
by regulation to have ongoing public education programs. However,
without periodic evaluations to determine if those programs are
reaching the intended audiences and increasing audience awareness of
the appropriate and necessary safety information, the impact and
effectiveness of an operator's program cannot be determined. Performing
evaluations of the programs and making necessary adjustments are the
only ways to ensure implementation as designed and effectiveness in
achieving intended goals. Effective programs will increase: Pipeline
safety awareness; understanding of pipeline operations; associated
public and environmental risks; and the preventive and mitigative steps
needed and taken to reduce those risks. Benefits can include: improved
results in damage prevention; reduced encroachments on pipeline rights-
of-way; improved pipeline safety and environmental performance; and
enhanced emergency response coordination.
PHMSA considers it important that operators perform and document an
initial baseline evaluation of their programs to validate the
operator's program. Based upon the results of the evaluation, operators
should revise or update their program(s), determine the frequency of
subsequent evaluations, and document the basis for determining the
frequency of subsequent evaluations consistent with the guidance
provided in API RP 1162.
5. Submission Periods
Several commenters, including API, AOPL, Enbridge, and TxOGA, noted
that operators should only be required to submit their public education
programs to PHMSA one time. They felt that subsequent periodic
submissions of operator programs or other related information and
records should not be required, and that PHMSA should rely on its
inspection program to evaluate continued operator compliance with the
rule. Enbridge commented that ``the review of programs, materials and
documentation at an Operator's workplace is far more useful for OPS
than submission by mail of written programs and materials. * * *
without interaction with the Operator * * * it will not be possible to
complete a robust assessment of a program.'' Enbridge noted that it
conducts outreach along many thousands of miles of pipe, which requires
more than a million mailings and hundreds of records of the contacts
with the target audience, and that periodic submissions of such
information from all operators would be of no utility to PHMSA.
Response
Currently, PHMSA does not intend to periodically require operators
to submit public awareness program documentation following the initial
submission. However, if PHMSA believes an operator's program or its
implementation is inadequate for safety, additional information may be
required. Some state regulations may establish different requirements
for submission of program material.
E. Scope of the New Rule
1. Information Breadth
API, AOPL, and INGAA commented on the intent and breadth of
information to be communicated to stakeholder audiences under API RP
1162 and this rule. They commented that RP 1162 is only part of a
broader effort to enhance public communications. They emphasized that
RP 1162 is intended to focus affected stakeholders on the presence of
pipelines and facilities in their area and on recognizing and
responding to emergency situations. The recommended practice was not
intended to address sharing of data and information on topics such as:
(1) Performance of operator's pipeline safety and integrity programs;
(2) detailed mapping; (3) communication needs explicit to the siting of
new pipelines; or (4) individual accident/incident response activities.
Commenters believe that work on these topics will be better served with
different approaches.
Others however, called for the proposed rule to include even
broader requirements. Suggestions included having operators make
available to the public plans and program documentation related to each
operator's: integrity management program; testing, maintenance, and
repairs; pipeline operating history; and education program evaluation
results.
Response
This rule focuses on requirements for operators to establish and
implement public awareness programs to provide outreach to a variety of
audiences. The primary focus of these programs, as mandated in the PSIA
and as qualified in API RP 1162, is to educate the public on: Use of a
one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage
prevention activities; possible hazards associated with unintended
releases from the pipeline facility; physical
[[Page 28840]]
indications that such a release may have occurred; steps that should be
taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release; and
procedures to report such an event. These programs will also include
activities to advise and increase the awareness by affected
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations.
There is no intent to include within the scope of the rule
requirements pertaining to operators, any additional communications
regarding new pipeline siting or construction, emergency communications
necessary as a result of a pipeline accident, or operator performance
results addressed through other means of communication or regulatory
reporting.
2. Rule Overlap
PHMSA received several comments regarding the scope of this rule
and API RP 1162 relative to similar requirements under current
regulations that require operators to conduct damage prevention
programs (Sec. 192.614 and Sec. 195.442), establish emergency plans,
maintain liaison with emergency officials (Sec. 192.615 and Sec.
195.402), and conduct public education programs (Sec. 192.616 and
Sec. 195.440). Additionally, AGA, TxOGA and several gas transmission
pipeline operators commented that PHMSA should acknowledge an overlap
between this rule's requirements and the public communication
requirements found in the gas integrity management rule, 49 CFR
192.911(m).
Response
PHMSA recognizes that there is some overlap between this rule and
the existing regulatory requirements cited in the comments, however,
there is no conflict created by this rule's issuance. It requires
operators to develop and implement improved public awareness programs
consistent with the guidance provided in API RP 1162 and the
requirements of the PSIA of 2002. Specific requirements for certain
aspects of external communications by an operator are noted in the
regulations cited in the comments. Those specific requirements may be
enhanced by the guidance provided in API RP 1162. The existence of
overlapping or similar requirements should not cause undue burden on
any operator. In some cases, achieving compliance with one requirement
may result in simultaneous compliance with another without the need for
additional actions. Operators may already have or may develop
integrated public awareness and external communication programs
addressing compliance with all requirements under a single umbrella.
Demonstrating compliance will simply involve demonstrating where and
how the operator's program addresses the various elements. The issuance
of this rule on pipeline operator public awareness programs does not
impact or provide any relief to operators regarding compliance
deadlines previously imposed by the gas integrity management regulatory
requirement in 49 CFR 192.911(m) or the imposed deadline referenced in
49 CFR 192.907.
3. Emergency Response Plans
Southwest Gas Corporation and its subsidiary Paiute Pipeline
Company commented that API RP 1162 provides that ``emergency
preparedness response plans should be developed for use internally and
externally with appropriate officials.'' They also noted that API RP
1162 indicates that ``the operator should include information about how
emergency officials can access the operator's emergency response
plan.'' Southwest and Paiute questioned if the emergency response plan
referred to in API RP 1162 is the same as required by 49 CFR 192.615
and, if so, is it PHMSA's intent for operators to provide emergency
officials a copy of the their emergency response plans.
Response
This rule on public awareness programs does not amend or change the
requirements of Sec. 192.615 Emergency Plans. Accordingly, operators
are still required to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate
emergency officials. Emergency liaison activities include communicating
with officials regarding operator resources and actions during an
emergency along with relating the emergency organization's capabilities
and roles. There is no requirement within Sec. 192.615 to provide
emergency officials with copies of operator emergency response plans,
especially not, as implied by the comments, for the purpose of non-
operator persons assuming control of the pipeline system.
F. Resource Requirements
Many commenters disagreed with PHMSA's conclusion that the costs to
implement this rule would be minimal. They pointed out that, although
most operators have public education programs, the incremental effort
to implement API RP 1162 could be significant. In particular,
commenters noted that polling public knowledge (as specified in Section
8 of the recommended practice), could be a significant cost. The
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America suggested that PHMSA
recognize the value of operator cooperative evaluation and survey
efforts. The Pipeline Association for Public Awareness also noted that
cooperative efforts are one way to create efficiencies in reaching
program goals.
Response
Much of the concern involving costs centered on the
misunderstanding that the rule would have made all provisions of API RP
1162 mandatory. As described elsewhere in this notice, that is not the
case. The Final Rule requires that operators develop and implement
public awareness programs, which many operators have already done.
Operators will need to evaluate their programs against the
recommendations in API RP 1162 to determine if changes are appropriate.
Many operators, particularly the larger ones, have already performed
such evaluations, have determined that program modifications are
necessary, and have begun making changes to their programs.\7\
Operators will retain flexibility in deciding which recommendations are
appropriate for their programs. Operators will need to document, in
their procedures, why other elements need not be implemented given
their circumstances. PHMSA acknowledges that this evaluation process
will require more than a ``minimal'' effort. Still, we expect that the
effort should be relatively small on a per operator basis. There may
also be some costs to implement program changes. These, too, are
expected to be relatively small on a per operator basis, since many
operators already have programs that are expected to incorporate many
of the recommendations of RP 1162 and some have begun to make changes
to their programs based on that guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Results of Operator Self-Assessments Required In Response to
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (http://
primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/RP1162/SA_Statistics_050704.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA does acknowledge that cooperative efforts can be an
appropriate means of controlling the costs associated with surveying
public knowledge of pipeline safety. Operators can conduct surveys on
their own, or they may participate in broader cooperative efforts.
Where a broader effort is used, each operator will be expected to
document its conduct and how it relates to the specific operator's
program and circumstances.
[[Page 28841]]
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The Department of Transportation (DOT) does not consider this rule
to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). This rule is considered
non-significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034: February 26, 1979). PHMSA prepared a Final Regulatory Evaluation
for this rule and placed it in the public docket. The evaluation
concludes that the RP 1162's adoption represents the most cost-
effective alternative for implementing the public education provisions
of PSIA 2002. Furthermore, PHMSA expects that the RP 1162's adoption
will have a positive net benefit for pipeline operators, public safety,
and the public environment. Most operators have existing public
awareness programs, some of which may need to be expanded to meet the
requirements of RP 1162. This is not expected to involve significant
cost, as operators have flexibility in determining which provisions of
the practice must be implemented in their programs. In addition to
addressing the Congressional mandate, this rule increases public
awareness obtained through the expansion of public education programs.
It is expected to increase emergency response. Pipeline industry
organizations endorsed the use of RP 1162 as the basis for pipeline
operator public awareness/education programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA
must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
PHMSA developed this rule in compliance with Executive Order 13272
(Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking) and DOT's
procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This ensures that the potential impacts of proposed
rules on small entities are properly considered. The majority of gas
transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline operators are large
entities. Of the pipeline operators that are small entities, the
majority are gas distribution operators.
Two trade associations represent natural gas distribution
operators, The American Gas Association (AGA) and the American Public
Gas Association (APGA). The APGA represents municipally-operated gas
distribution systems. Conversations between PHMSA and APGA indicate
that there are approximately 950 municipally operated gas distribution
operators. APGA represents 600 of these. Of these 600, APGA estimates
that 550 of them would be classified as small entities. The APGA held
two teleconferences for its members. PHMSA reported in the notice of
proposed rulemaking that APGA indicated compliance with the provisions
of this rule would not represent a significant impact on its members,
because of the possibility of flexibility in implementing the
standard's requirements. APGA indicated that it would be willing to
help small pipeline operators comply with this regulation through
training and development of model programs.
APGA submitted comments on the rule concluding it would have
significant impact on its members and that PHMSA had failed to satisfy
the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. APGA's comments
indicated that their conclusion was based on the belief that the rule,
as proposed, had removed the flexibility inherent in the recommended
practice by converting all of its provisions to binding requirements.
As explained elsewhere in this preamble, the Final Rule does not have
that effect. The rule requires that operators develop and implement
public awareness programs, and references API RP 1162, but does not
make all the provisions in the recommended practice mandatory.
Operators must consider each provision and they must either implement
each, or include in their procedures a documented reason why the
provision is not appropriate for their public awareness program(s).
Thus, some level of documentation is required for each provision,
demonstrating its consideration and the basis for not incorporating it
(if applicable). However, operator programs need not include all
elements of the standard. PHMSA concludes that the flexibility that was
assumed to exist at the time that APGA made the statements referenced
in the notice of proposed rulemaking is still inherent in this Final
Rule.
Based upon the above information showing that the economic impact
of this rule on small entities will be minimal, I certify under section
605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this regulation will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains some information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
DOT will submit a copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis to the
Office of Management and Budget for its review and to the docket. The
requirements for information collection include development by each
pipeline operator of a written public awareness program in compliance
with API RP 1162. In addition, API RP 1162 includes requirements for
public awareness program documentation and recordkeeping. A pipeline
industry group developed the standard which reflects industry practices
for these aspects of operator programs. Some operators may have
increased required levels of documentation and recordkeeping, but these
are not expected to be significant. Therefore, PHMSA concludes that
this rule contains a total of 517,480 hours of additional paperwork
burden for the 22,500 hazardous liquid, natural gas transmission,
natural gas distribution, and master meter systems operators. PHMSA
estimated that on average, it will take an operator an additional 23
hours annually to meet the paperwork burden which includes development
of public awareness plan as well as recordkeeping requirements, at a
total cost of $33.7 million.
Executive Order 13175
PHMSA analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria
contained in Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments). Because this rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria
contained in Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). This rule does not
propose 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 States and local governments; or (3) preempts State law.
Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) do not apply. It should be noted
that representatives of the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR), which
[[Page 28842]]
includes State pipeline safety regulators, participated extensively in
the development and review of API RP 1162, which forms the basis for
this rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. An industry working group, along
with participants from NAPSR, developed API RP 1162, which forms the
basis for the rule. Industry organizations endorsed this approach to
setting requirements for operator public awareness programs. PHMSA
believes this to be the least burdensome alternative that achieves the
rule's objective.
National Environmental Policy Act
PHMSA analyzed this rule for purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined that this
action will not have a significant impact on the environment. The
Environmental Assessment of this rule is available for review in the
docket.
Executive Order 13211
This rulemaking is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). It is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rulemaking has not been
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 192
Pipeline safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 195
Pipeline safety, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends parts 192 and 195 of
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 192 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60116, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
0
2. Section 192.7 is amended in the table in paragraph (c)(2) by adding
a new item B.(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 192.7 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source and name of referenced material 49 CFR reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
B. * * *
(5) API Recommended Practice 1162 ``Public Awareness Sec. 192.616
Programs for Pipeline Operators,'' First Edition
(December 2003)....................................
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 192.616 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.616 Public awareness.
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written
continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided
in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP)
1162 (IBR, see Sec. 192.7).
(b) The operator's program must follow the general program
recommendations of API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and
characteristics of the operator's pipeline and facilities.
(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations of
API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program
or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain
provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not
necessary for safety.
(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to
educate the public, appropriate government organizations, and persons
engaged in excavation related activities on:
(1) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and
other damage prevention activities;
(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a gas
pipeline facility;
(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;
(4) Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a
gas pipeline release; and
(5) Procedures for reporting such an event.
(e) The program must include activities to advise affected
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations.
(f) The program and the media used must be as comprehensive as
necessary to reach all areas in which the operator transports gas.
(g) The program must be conducted in English and in other languages
commonly understood by a significant number and concentration of the
non-English speaking population in the operator's area.
(h) Operators in existence on June 20, 2005, must have completed
their written programs no later than June 20, 2006. As an exception,
operators of small propane distribution systems having less than 25
customers and master meter operators having less than 25 customers must
have completed development and documentation of their programs no later
than June 20, 2007. Upon request, operators must submit their completed
programs to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility
operator, the appropriate State agency.
(i) The operator's program documentation and evaluation results
must be available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory
agencies.
PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
0
4. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60116,
60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
0
5. Section 195.3 is amended in the table in paragraph (c) by
redesignating items B.(13) through B.(16) as B.(14)
[[Page 28843]]
through B.(17) and adding a new item B.(13) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.3 Material incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR
Source and name of referenced material reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
B.* * *
(13 API Recommended Practice 1162 ``Public Awareness Sec.
Programs for Pipeline Operators,'' First Edition (December 195.440
2003).....................................................
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6. Section 195.440 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.440 Public awareness.
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written
continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided
in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP)
1162 (IBR, see Sec. 195.3).
(b) The operator's program must follow the general program
recommendations of API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and
characteristics of the operator's pipeline and facilities.
(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,
including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless
the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual
as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended
practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.
(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to
educate the public, appropriate government organizations, and persons
engaged in excavation related activities on:
(1) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and
other damage prevention activities;
(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline facility;
(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;
(4) Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline release; and
(5) Procedures to report such an event.
(e) The program must include activities to advise affected
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations.
(f) The program and the media used must be as comprehensive as
necessary to reach all areas in which the operator transports hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide.
(g) The program must be conducted in English and in other languages
commonly understood by a significant number and concentration of the
non-English speaking population in the operator's area.
(h) Operators in existence on June 20, 2005, must have completed
their written programs no later than June 20, 2006. Upon request,
operators must submit their completed programs to PHMSA or, in the case
of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate State
agency.
(i) The operator's program documentation and evaluation results
must be available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory
agencies.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2005.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Acting Assistant Administrator/Chief Safety Officer, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-9464 Filed 5-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P