[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52511-52512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26694]



[[Page 52511]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-117; Amdt. 195-57A]
RIN 2137-AC87


Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Serving Plants and 
Terminals

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the direct final rule that excluded from 
RSPA's safety standards for hazardous liquid pipelines low-stress 
pipelines regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard and low-stress pipelines 
less than 1 mile long that serve certain plants and transportation 
terminals without crossing an offshore area or a waterway currently 
used for commercial navigation. (62 FR 31364, June 9, 1997.) Applicable 
procedural rules require withdrawal because an interested person 
submitted an adverse comment on the direct final rule. RSPA's stay of 
enforcement of the safety standards against these pipelines will remain 
in effect until the matter is resolved through further rulemaking.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 62 FR 31364 is withdrawn on 
October 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow, (202)366-4559, regarding 
the subject matter of this notice. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-
5046, for copies of this document or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to increased environmental 
awareness, critical accidents involving low-stress pipelines, and 
Congressional direction, RSPA extended its hazardous liquid pipeline 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 195) to cover certain low-stress 
pipelines of higher risk (Docket No. PS-117; 59 FR 35465; July 12, 
1994). The term ``low-stress pipeline'' means a hazardous liquid 
pipeline that is operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 
percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the line 
pipe (Sec. 195.2). Except for onshore rural gathering lines and 
gravity-powered lines, the following categories of low-stress pipelines 
were brought under the regulations: pipelines that transport highly 
volatile liquids, pipelines located onshore and outside rural areas, 
pipelines located offshore, and pipelines located in waterways that are 
currently used for commercial navigation (Sec. 195.1(b)(3)). Because 
the rulemaking record showed that many low-stress pipelines probably 
were not operated and maintained consistent with Part 195 requirements, 
operators were allowed to delay compliance of their existing lines 
until July 12, 1996, (Sec. 195.1(c)).
    The largest proportion of low-stress pipelines brought under Part 
195 consisted of interfacility transfer lines (about two-thirds of the 
pipelines and one-third of the overall mileage). The remainder included 
trunk lines and certain urban gathering lines. Interfacility transfer 
lines move hazardous liquids locally between facilities such as truck, 
rail, and vessel transportation terminals, manufacturing plants, 
petrochemical plants, and oil refineries, or between these facilities 
and associated storage or long-distance pipeline transportation. The 
lines usually are short, averaging about a mile in length.
    Interfacility transfer lines are also impacted by the Process 
Safety Management regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.119). These regulations, which 
involve hazard analysis and control, operating and maintenance 
procedures, and personnel training, are intended to reduce the risk of 
fires and explosions caused by the escape of hazardous chemicals from 
facility processes. In addition, transfer lines between vessels and 
marine transportation-related facilities are subject to safety 
regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR Parts 154 and 156).
    We considered the costs and potential confusion of this regulatory 
overlap with Part 195 as well as information that showed that bringing 
interfacility transfer lines into full compliance with Part 195 would 
be difficult for many operators. Weighing these problems against the 
need for risk reduction, we decided that the potential benefits of 
complying with Part 195 do not justify the effort if the line is short 
and does not cross an offshore area or a commercially navigable 
waterway, or if the line is regulated by the Coast Guard.
    Consequently, we announced a stay of enforcement of Part 195 
against certain interfacility transfer lines (61 FR 24245; May 14, 
1996). The stay applies to low-stress pipelines that are regulated by 
the Coast Guard or that extend less than 1 mile outside plant or 
terminal grounds without crossing an offshore area or any waterway 
currently used for commercial navigation. We intend to keep the stay in 
effect until modified or until we finally revise the Part 195 
regulations to eliminate the need for the stay.
    Following publication of the stay of enforcement, we issued a 
direct final rule to amend Part 195 to comport with the stay (62 FR 
31364; June 9, 1997). This direct final rule revised Sec. 195.1(b)(3) 
to exclude from Part 195 those low-stress interfacility transfer lines 
that were covered by the stay, while continuing to exclude other low-
stress pipelines that were previously excluded.
    The procedures governing issuance of direct final rules are in 49 
CFR 190.339. These procedures provide for public notice and opportunity 
for comment subsequent to publication of a direct final rule. They also 
provide that if an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an 
adverse comment is received, RSPA will issue a timely notice in the 
Federal Register to confirm that fact and withdraw the direct final 
rule in whole or in part. Under the procedures, RSPA may then 
incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or 
may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Four persons submitted comments on the direct final rule: American 
Petroleum Institute (API), California Department of Fish and Game 
(CDF&G), California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), and 
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). API made an editorial 
comment, while CIPA and WSPA argued that the direct final rule should 
be expanded to also exclude from Part 195 short low-stress pipelines 
serving production/shipping facilities in urban areas.
    However, CDF&G opposed the direct final rule. It argued, first, 
that the Coast Guard's regulations are not an adequate substitute for 
RSPA's because of weak pressure testing requirements and the absence of 
cathodic protection requirements to guard against corrosion. Secondly, 
it said the exclusion of short plant and terminal transfer lines should 
apply only if a discharge would not impact marine waters of the United 
States. In contrast, the direct final rule excluded these lines if they 
did not cross offshore or a commercially navigable waterway.
    Because of the adverse comment from CDF&G, we are withdrawing the 
direct final rule. We intend to follow up this action with a notice of 
proposed rulemaking that will propose to amend the application of Part 
195 in a way similar to the direct final rule, but by taking into 
account the comments we received on it.


[[Page 52512]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 3, 1997.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-26694 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P