        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Chapter III, Subchapter B
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037]
        Request for Comments Concerning Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) Which May Be a Barrier to the Safe Testing and Deployment of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles on Public Roads

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          FMCSA requests public comments on existing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that may need to be updated, modified, or eliminated to facilitate the safe introduction of automated driving systems (ADS) equipped commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) onto our Nation's roadways. To assist in this undertaking, FMCSA commissioned the U.S. Department of Transportation's John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to conduct a preliminary review of the FMCSRs to identify regulations that may relate to the development and safe introduction of ADS. The Agency requests comments on this report, including whether any of FMCSA's current safety regulations may hinder the testing and safe integration of ADS-equipped CMVs. Further, FMCSA requests comment on certain specific regulatory requirements that are likely to be affected by an increased integration of ADS-equipped CMVs. However, the Agency is not seeking comments on its financial responsibility requirements because they are not directly related to CMV technologies and because future insurance requirements will depend in part on the evolution of State tort law with respect to liability for the operation of ADS-equipped vehicles. In addition, to support FMCSA's effort to understand future impacts on the FMCSR's, FMCSA requests information, including from companies engaged in the design, development, testing, and integration of ADS-equipped CMVs into the fleet. Specifically, the Agency requests information about: The scenarios and environments where entities expect that ADS will soon be tested and integrated into CMVs operating on public roads or in interstate commerce; the operational design domains (ODD) in which these systems are being operated or would be tested and eventually deployed; and, measures they believe are required to ensure the protection of any proprietary or confidential business information they intend to share with the Agency.

          DATES:

            Public Comments: Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 10, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0037 using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Michael Huntley, Division Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-9209, michael.huntley@dot.gov, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Submitting Comments
        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2018-0037), indicate the specific section of this document and the Volpe report to which each comment applies, provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation, and identify the source of any data informing your comment. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0037, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
        If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
        Viewing Comments and Documents

        To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0037, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
        Privacy Act

        The Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
        I. Background
        On September 12, 2017, the Department published the Automated Driving Systems (ADS): A Vision for Safety 2.0. (Publication No. DOT HS 812 442) (the Voluntary Guidance). The Voluntary Guidance offers a path forward for the safe integration of automated vehicles by:
        • Encouraging new entrants and ideas that deliver safer vehicles;
        • Making the Departmental regulatory processes more nimble to help match the pace of private sector innovation; and,
        • Supporting industry innovation and encouraging open communication with the public and with stakeholders.

        The Voluntary Guidance is rooted in the Department's view that ADS-equipped vehicles hold enormous potential benefits for safety, mobility, and the efficiency of our transportation system. The primary focus of the Voluntary Guidance is on levels of ADS that can take full control of the driving tasks in at least some circumstances. Portions of the Voluntary Guidance also apply to lower levels of automation, including some of the driver assistance systems already being deployed by automakers today. The full document can be found at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf.
        The Voluntary Guidance adopts the SAE International (SAE) J3016 standard's definitions for levels of automation. The SAE definitions divide vehicles into levels based on “who does what, when.” Generally:
        • SAE Level 0, No Driving Automation; the driver performs all driving tasks.
        • SAE Level 1, Driver Assistance; the vehicle is controlled by the driver, but some driving assist features may be included in the vehicle design.
        • SAE Level 2, Partial Driving Automation; the vehicle has combined automated functions, like acceleration and steering, but the driver must remain engaged with the driving task and monitor the environment at all times.
        • SAE Level 3, Conditional Driving Automation; the driver is a necessity, but is not required to monitor the environment. The driver must be ready to take control of the vehicle at all times with notice.
        • SAE Level 4, High Driving Automation; the vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under certain conditions. The driver may have the option to control the vehicle.
        • SAE Level 5, Full Driving Automation: the vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under all conditions.

        Using the SAE levels described above, the Department draws a distinction between Levels 0-2 and 3-5 based on whether the human driver or the automated system is primarily responsible for monitoring the driving environment. For the purposes of this Federal Register notice, the Agency's primary focus is SAE Levels 3-5 ADS.
        FMCSA encourages the development of these advanced safety technologies for use on CMVs, and at the same time, recognizes the need to work with the States to ensure that, from an operations standpoint, all testing and use of these advanced safety systems is conducted in a manner that ensures the safe operation of ADS-equipped commercial vehicles.
        FMCSA is responsible for the safety oversight of motor carriers operating CMVs in interstate commerce, the drivers of CMVs, and the vehicles. The Agency works with its State partners to deliver programs intended to prevent CMV crashes, and the associated injuries and fatalities.

        The FMCSRs provide rules to ensure the safe operation of CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, which includes vehicles with a gross vehicle weight/gross combination weight or gross vehicle weight rating/gross combination weight rating, whichever is greater, of 10,001 pounds or more; passenger-carrying vehicles designed or used to transport 9 to 15 passengers for direct compensation; passenger-carrying vehicles designed or used to transport 16 or more passengers; and any size vehicle transporting hazardous materials in a quantity requiring placards.

        On April 24, 2017, FMCSA held a public listening session to solicit information on issues relating to the design, development, testing, and integration of ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles (82 FR 18096, April 17, 2017). The listening session provided interested parties an opportunity to share their views and any data or analysis on this topic with Agency representatives. The Agency also invited interested parties to submit written comments by July 17, 2017. A full transcript of the listening session and all written comments is available in public docket, FMCSA-2017-0114, at www.regulations.gov.
        II. Request for Public Comments: The Applications of the FMCSRs to ADS-Equipped CMVs
        In addition to the public listening session discussed above, FMCSA commissioned Volpe to conduct a preliminary review of the FMCSRs to identify regulations that relate to the development and safe introduction of automated driving systems. FMCSA subsequently received from Volpe its final report, “Review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for Automated Commercial Vehicles: Preliminary Assessment of Interpretation and Enforcement Challenges, Questions, and Gaps,” report number MCSA-RRT-17-013, August 2017. A copy of the report is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
        Volpe found several provisions in the FMCSRs that might present challenges for automated CMVs that continue to require a human driver. Additionally, Volpe indicated that automated CMVs either requiring an onboard (non-driving) human technician or not requiring an onboard human at all may face compliance challenges. Volpe noted, however, that the nature and extent of these challenges will depend on how key terms and applicability statements are interpreted.
        Notwithstanding the findings of the Volpe analysis, the Policy released on September 12, 2017, indicated (see page 2 of the publication) that FMCSA believes its regulations require that “a trained commercial driver must be behind the wheel at all times, regardless of any automated driving technologies available on the CMV, unless a petition for a waiver or exemption has been granted.” In light of the comments the Agency received in response to its April 17, 2017, request for public comments and the remarks of those in attendance at the April 24, 2017, public listening session, the Agency is reconsidering its views on this matter. The absence of specific regulatory text requiring a driver be behind the wheel may afford the Agency the flexibility to allow, under existing regulations, ADS to perform the driver's functions in the operational design domain in which the system would be relied upon, without the presence of a trained commercial driver in the driver's seat.
        FMCSA notes that in the event regulatory relief is necessary to allow the operation of a commercial motor vehicle without a person in the driver's seat, the Agency has authority to grant waivers for up to three months, grant exemptions for up to five years (with the possibility of renewals of the exemptions), or allow pilot programs for up to three years, provided certain conditions are satisfied [see 49 CFR part 381].

        To that end, the Agency seeks information concerning the extent to which the public, including industry, safety advocates, the motoring public, and those engaged in the design, development, testing, and integration of ADS for CMVs believe any of FMCSA's current safety regulations may hinder the testing and safe deployment of ADS-equipped CMVs, including, but not limited to, the regulations preliminarily identified by Volpe. In particular, the agency is interested in comments concerning how different interpretations of the applicability of FMCSRs to ADS-equipped CMVs could represent a barrier, e.g., whether the FMCSRs, under certain conditions, could be read to require, or not require, the presence of a trained commercial driver in the driver's seat. To the extent commenters do identify unnecessary barriers, how could FMCSA use its available regulatory relief mechanism to appropriately remove or reduce those barriers?
        In addition to the issues in the Volpe Report, the agency also requests comment on how ADS-equipped CMVs could interact with certain specific regulations.
        Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance
        The FMCSRs require all CMVs to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained. All parts must be in safe and proper operating condition at all times. With limited exceptions, motor carriers are prohibited from operating a CMV unless there is proof that it has passed an annual inspection.
        How should motor carriers ensure the proper functioning of ADS prior to operating in an automated mode?
        Should the Agency consider minimum requirements for motor carrier personnel responsible for maintaining the equipment used to achieve certain levels of automated operations (for example, a requirement that technicians be trained by the ADS developers, etc.)?
        What Information Technology (IT) security/safety assurances can be provided by maintenance personnel and CMV drivers/operators that the ADS systems are functioning properly?
        For State representatives with experience inspecting traditional CMVs, what types of malfunctions or damage on an ADS-equipped CMV should be considered an imminent hazard? Do you have any additional comments regarding inspection, repair, and maintenance?
        Roadside and Annual Inspections
        FMCSA and its State partners conduct roadside inspections of CMVs to identify and remove from service unsafe drivers and vehicles. The inspection criteria represent enforcement tolerances, which are thresholds for determining whether the level of noncompliance with the applicable safety regulations is severe enough to warrant placing the vehicle or driver out-of-service.
        How could an enforcement official identify CMVs capable of various levels of automated operation? For example, should CMVs with ADS be visibly marked to indicate the level of automated operation they are designed to achieve, or would making these vehicles so easily identifiable cause other road users to interact unfavorably with CMVs with ADS?
        Do you have any additional comments regarding roadside and annual inspections?
        Distracted Driving (Prohibition Against Texting and Using Handheld Wireless Phones) and Driver Monitoring

        This section applies to situations involving a Level 3 human-monitored ADS. Current regulations prohibit individuals from texting and using hand-held wireless phones while driving CMVs in interstate commerce.

        What changes, if any, should be made to the distracted driving regulations for human drivers of CMVs with ADS while in automated mode? For example, should a human driver in a CMV with ADS be allowed to use a hand-held wireless phone while the ADS is in complete control of the vehicle?

        Should driver fatigue monitoring be required, and if so, what method(s) should be used to conduct such monitoring? For example, the Trucking Fatigue Meter [See https://pulsarinformatics.com/products/trucking] samples data throughout the day and alerts fleet managers once a human driver exceeds a company-determined fatigue threshold.
        Additionally, should these systems be required to provide “alertness assistance” to human drivers? For example, should these systems be required to periodically request input from human drivers, or should they be required to request input from human drivers only when the driver appears to be losing focus or when the ADS in control of the vehicle is confronted with situations outside its parameters?

        What level of human driver inattentiveness (or how long a period of inattentiveness) should be allowed in a vehicle controlled by an ADS before the vehicle is required to enter its minimal risk condition? How long after entering the minimal risk condition must a human driver wait to re-engage an ADS (e.g., a minimum 30-minute break may provide the driver an opportunity to rest)? What should the requirements be for re-engaging the CMV with ADS in an automated mode in this scenario?
        Medical Qualifications
        FMCSA's regulations include physical qualification standards for humans driving CMVs to ensure that they are medically qualified to do so. As technology advances, humans may be required only to monitor the operation of CMVs with ADS on public roadways, or they may not be required at all. Thus, as technology develops, changes to the physical qualification rules will be required, and some medical conditions may become inapplicable.
        What medical conditions currently precluding issuance of a medical card could become inapplicable as ADS technology develops?
        What medical conditions currently precluding issuance of a medical card should NOT be considered disqualifying for a human driver who is simply monitoring a CMV with ADS?
        Hours of Service for Drivers
        FMCSA's regulations include requirements intended to reduce the risk of driver fatigue and fatigue-related crashes. Generally, the rules for truck drivers allow up to 11 hours driving time in the work day, following 10 consecutive hours off-duty. And all driving must be completed within 14 hours of the beginning of the work day. The rules prohibit driving after a driver has accumulated a certain amount of on-duty time (which includes the time spent driving and time spent performing other work) during the work week. Current regulations require that all time spent at the operating controls of the CMV be recorded as on-duty, driving time. Given the SAE levels of automation discussed above, FMCSA seeks public comments on how drivers' hours of service should be recorded if the ADS is relied upon to perform some or all of the driving tasks.
        Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Endorsements
        FMCSA requires all drivers of CMVs to have the knowledge and skills necessary to operate a CMV safely. States are required to include specific items in the knowledge and skills tests administered to CDL applicants. CDL applicants wishing to obtain specific endorsements must satisfy additional knowledge and skill test requirements. Existing endorsements include: Double/triple trailers, passenger, tank vehicle, hazardous materials, and school bus.
        Due to potential variations in ADS technology across various providers, FMCSA seeks to ensure that human drivers and operators of CMVs with ADS receive training for the specific technologies present in the vehicles they operate.
        Should an endorsement be considered for human drivers and operators of CMVs with ADS to ensure they (1) understand the capabilities and limitations of the advanced technologies, and (2) know when it is appropriate to rely on automatic rather than manual operation? If so, what types of tests—knowledge, skills, or both—should be required to obtain such an endorsement; and should there be separate endorsements for different types of ADS?
        If an ADS-equipped CMV is to be deployed without a human driver onboard, should the computer system be required to demonstrate autonomous capabilities for the same maneuvers included on the CDL skills test?
        III. Request for Information: Current Testing and Operation of CMVs With ADS
        Data Sharing
        FMCSA would like to ensure that the Agency is able to receive and review data and information from the private sector to understand a driver's experience with ADS technologies in real-world settings.
        If you are a developer or tester of ADS technologies, what types of data and/or safety measures are you currently collecting—or do you plan to collect—during testing? How often is this data collected?
        How can FMCSA ensure that data and/or safety measures collected are presented in a comparable format?
        How can FMCSA assess whether a CMV equipped with an ADS is being operated as safely as a traditional CMV operating on a public roadway?
        What pieces of information are entities using to evaluate how a driver is using an ADS- equipped commercial vehicle?
        Testing and Interstate Operations of CMVs With ADS on Public Roadways
        What type of ADS-equipped CMVs are currently being tested? Are they Level 4 ADS-equipped vehicles that can only operate on certain roadways, Level 4 vehicles with more extensive ODDs, or full Level 5 vehicles?
        Do vehicles currently being tested have operational limitations to ensure safe operations? Examples of operational limitations might include time of day, weather conditions, types of roads, specific routes within an ODD, maximum allowable operational speed, markings showing that the vehicle is capable of highly automated operations, etc.
        In moving forward what actions, if any, should FMCSA consider to ensure the safe operation of ADS-equipped CMV's in various ODDs?
        How can FMCSA assess whether a CMV with ADS operating within its ODD can perform on certain maneuvers, such as emergency brake performance, crash avoidance maneuvers, etc.?
        Should FMCSA consider approaching CMVs that carry persons or hazardous materials differently than other CMVs?
        For State representatives, would you consider changing certain requirements (for example, higher versus lower levels of insurance) for an ADS-equipped CMV? If yes, based on what factors; and how would you implement such requirements?
        Beyond Compliance Program
        On April 23, 2015, FMCSA issued an initial Federal Register notice seeking comment on the impacts of a possible “Beyond Compliance Program” to consider a company's voluntary implementation of state-of-the-art best practices and technologies when evaluating a carrier's safety (80 FR 22770).
        The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act mandated that the Agency provide recognition to motor carriers for voluntary use of advanced technologies or safety programs (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, Dec. 4, 2012). Per section 5222, FMCSA may authorize qualified entities to monitor motor carriers that receive “Beyond Compliance” recognition (129 Stat. 1540).
        To what extent, if any, should the various levels of automation be considered as part of the Beyond Compliance Program?
        Regulation of Manufacturing Versus Operation
        The regulation of CMVs is a function shared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and FMCSA, with manufacturing regulated by NHTSA and operation regulated by FMCSA (and its State partners). Does this separation of functions create unique problems, or perhaps offer unique solutions, for operators of ADS-equipped CMVs?
        Confidentiality of Shared Information
        FMCSA acknowledges that companies may be reluctant to share certain proprietary data or information with the Agency, either as part of the waiver, exemption, or pilot program application process, or during the pendency of a regulatory relief period. The Agency notes that 49 CFR 389.3 provides protection for “confidential business information” which includes trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Commercial or financial information is considered confidential if it is voluntarily submitted to the Agency and constitutes the type of information not customarily released to the general public. FMCSA has established standards and procedures by which the Agency will solicit, receive, and protect confidential information from public disclosure. The Agency is seeking information from interested parties on how it might further protect non-public information necessary to assess whether ADS-equipped CMVs meet performance standards and accurately document safety-related events during a waiver, temporary exemption, or pilot program.
        What measures would original equipment manufacturers and developers expect of FMCSA before sharing confidential business information?
        How might the Agency obtain information sufficient to assess the safety performance of CMVs with ADS without collecting confidential business information?
        Do you have any additional comments regarding the confidentiality of shared information?

          Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: March 16, 2018.
          Raymond P. Martinez,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2018-05788 Filed 3-23-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Part 195
        [Docket No. RSPA-01-8663]
        RIN 2137-AD56
        Pipeline Safety: Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Accident Reporting Revisions

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments on revised form.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice of proposed rulemaking would amend the pipeline safety regulations to lower the reporting threshold for hazardous liquid pipeline spills from 50 barrels to 5 gallons. We are also seeking comments on revisions to the hazardous liquid accident form to improve its usefulness. On the revised accident form, reporting for spills from 5 gallons to less than 5 barrels will require minimal information. The improvements to the hazardous liquid accident form are necessary to address known deficiencies in the current information collection. The improved information on failure cause categories and more detailed information about the impact of failed pipelines will improve pipeline safety statistics, increasing the overall usefulness of the data and making analysis more efficient and meaningful.

          DATES:
          Comments on the subject of this proposed rule must be received on or before May 21, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit written comments by mail or in person by delivering an original and two copies to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Or, you may submit written comments to the docket electronically at the following Web address: http://dms.dot.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional filing information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Roger Little by phone at (202) 366-4569, by e-mail at roger.little@rspa.dot.gov, or by mail at the Office Of Pipeline Safety, Room 7128, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590 regarding the subject matter of this notice or to access comments in the docket.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Filing Information, Electronic Access, and General Program Information

        The Dockets facility is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. All comments should identify the docket number of this notice, RSPA-01-8663. You should submit the original and one copy. If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your comments, you must include a stamped, self-addressed postcard. To file written comments electronically, after logging onto http://dms.dot.gov, click on “Electronic Submission.” You can read comments and other material in the docket at this Web address: http://dms.dot.gov. General information about our pipeline safety program is available at this address: http://ops.dot.gov.

        Background
        RSPA Pipeline Safety Mission
        RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety has responsibility for assuring adequate safety and environmental protection for risks posed by the nation's approximately 2 million miles of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The OPS shares responsibility for inspecting and overseeing the nation's pipelines with state pipeline safety offices that also depend on the information RSPA collects.
        RSPA Pipeline Safety Data
        To fulfill its safety mission, RSPA maintains a hazardous liquid pipeline accident database that is widely recognized as the nation's best source of such information. The information that RSPA collects on reportable hazardous liquid accidents provides an important tool for identifying safety trends in the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. RSPA has collected hazardous liquid pipeline accident information since the early 1970s, with only one revision to the accident collection procedures in July 1984. Under 49 CFR part 195, RSPA is authorized to develop regulations, inspect facilities, and ensure compliance with standards established to ensure safety and environmental protection from risks to the public and the environment that are posed by hazardous liquid pipelines. Operators are required to report accidents according to the procedures established in 49 CFR 195.50. The information is used to identify safety trends for regulatory purposes and to target inspections of hazardous liquid pipeline facilities based on risk.
        The Need for Pipeline Safety Data
        Accurate, meaningful pipeline safety incident information is needed for general trending of pipeline safety data and risk assessment, for deciding which pipelines need rehabilitation vs. replacement, for analyzing cost benefits, and for comparing individual operator performance with industry performance. This safety information is used by RSPA for daily decision making in RSPA's assessment of pipeline risks, regulatory development, and programmatic resource allocation. In addition to the need for information for safety trending and diagnosis, RSPA uses the information in monitoring industry performance and regulatory compliance, and for planning company standard safety inspections. State pipeline safety programs with hazardous liquid pipeline safety responsibility also use the information for these purposes. The information is also widely used by third-parties, including state governors, Congress, metropolitan planners, pipeline research engineers, industry safety experts, the media, and the public.
        Why Revise the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report Form?

        In 1984, the RSPA hazardous liquid accident form was revised as a result of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The report has been in use since 1984 without revision, providing 16 years of data upon which pipeline safety analysis has been extensively conducted. Over the years we became aware of shortcomings in the data collection that need improvement. In recent years, the usefulness of the hazardous liquid accident data collection has been found to be limited due to the level of detail and accuracy, and the quality of the collected data. Recognizing the limitations to effective pipeline safety analysis that these data deficiencies cause, the National Transportation Safety Board, the DOT Office of the Inspector General, and others have urged RSPA to improve the collection of pipeline safety data.
        Department of Transportation Inspector General Recommendation
        DOT's Office of the Inspector General, in a March 2000 audit report of RSPA's pipeline safety program, recommended that RSPA

          implement revisions in the collection and processing of pipeline accident data to expand accident causal categories for more detailed trend analysis, and to clarify accident form instructions so that operators will be more consistent and accurate in reporting accident causes.

        National Transportation Safety Board Recommendation
        In its special investigation report PB96-917002 (January 23, 1996), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued recommendation P-96-1 which directed the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) to develop

          a comprehensive plan for the collection and use of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accident data that details the type and extent of data to be collected, to provide the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) with the capability to perform methodologically sound accident trend analysis and evaluations of pipeline operator performance using normalized accident data.

        Congressional Recommendations
        Recent significant pipeline accidents have focused the regulators, Congress, the media, and the public's attention on the need for better pipeline safety information. Congress has advised RSPA to seek quick action to improve the quantity, quality, and usefulness of safety information to better perform its safety mission.
        During the 106th Congress, the proposed Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000 (S. 2438) was considered by both houses of Congress. The proposed bill included provisions to require RSPA to gather improved pipeline spill information for spills as small as five gallons:

          SEC. 10. IMPROVED DATA AND DATA AVAILABILITY.
          (a) IN GENERAL.—Within 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the collection and use of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline data to revise the causal categories on the incident report forms to eliminate overlapping and confusing categories and include subcategories. The plan shall include components to provide the capability to perform sound incident trend analysis and evaluations of pipeline operator performance using normalized accident data.
          (b) REPORT OF RELEASES EXCEEDING 5 GALLONS.—Section 60117(b) is amended—
          (1) by inserting “(1)” before “To”; 25
          (2) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B);
          (3) inserting before the last sentence the following: “(2) A person owning or operating a hazardous liquid pipeline facility shall report to the Secretary each release to the environment greater than five gallons of the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide transported. This section applies to releases from pipeline facilities regulated under this chapter. A report must include the location of the release, fatalities and personal injuries, type of product, amount of product release, cause or causes of the release, extent of damage to property and the environment, and the response undertaken to clean-up the release.

        Although this proposed Act did not achieve final passage in the last Congress, we believe the intention to require improved data collection is apparent.
        White House Memorandum
        In a letter to the Secretary of Transportation, the President (November 3, 2000) asked the Secretary of Transportation to provide for

          collection of more complete and detailed information on the causes of accidents, thereby facilitating better trends analysis and helping to prevent future accidents. Specifically, you should improve accident reporting forms as soon as possible for both hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines by expanding causal categories and clarifying instructions so that data submissions are more consistent and accurate.

        Industry Recognition of the Need for Better Information
        The pipeline industry has recognized the need to improve the usefulness of the hazardous liquid pipeline data. In recent years, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.4 committee conducted annual reviews of hazardous liquid pipeline accident data collection to evaluate the usefulness of the information. The ASME B31.4 committee developed an extended set of pipeline failure causes. The findings of the ASME committee have been made available to OPS and others for additional scrutiny as part of the ongoing effort to seek improvements in data usefulness. The ASME causes have been widely recognized and have gained industry and government acceptance.
        Joint Industry/State/Federal Data Team
        RSPA has been working with a joint industry/State/Federal team since 1997 to examine hazardous liquid pipeline accident data needs. The team determined that standardization of accident causes based on the causes proposed by the ASME B31.4 committees would be the best way to address accident reporting deficiencies. The team determined that the American Petroleum Institute (API) could develop and collect additional hazardous liquid pipeline data with a voluntary reporting system. API developed the data collection scheme in a system known as the Pipeline Performance Tracking Initiative (PPTI), and is now pilot-testing the system using calendar year 1999 data.
        Standardization of Accident Data Across Industry
        RSPA plans to implement the recommendations of the NTSB, the DOT's Office of the Inspector General, Congress, and the White House by clarifying and standardizing the accident cause categories, and collecting better information for both natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. Furthermore, the natural gas pipeline transmission industry has recently accepted the expanded ASME B31.4 accident cause categories.
        RSPA acknowledges the need for consistent pipeline information for both natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. Plans are currently underway to similarly revise natural gas transmission incident pipeline information. RSPA also plans to adopt a similar failure cause scheme for natural gas distribution pipeline incidents later in 2001. By adopting recognized industry proposed failure causal categories for natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents, we are taking a step toward further standardization of pipeline safety statistics for all pipeline types, increasing the overall usefulness of the data, and making analysis more efficient and meaningful.
        Identified Shortcomings in RSPA Pipeline Safety Data

        Some key deficiencies that have been identified and which are being addressed in the current proposed revision are: insufficient information about spills below 50 barrels and spills in water; absence of complete information; oversimplification of the failure cause categories on the current accident form (including a high percentage of causes reported in the “OTHER” category where accident cause does not fit into the three causes provided); and insufficient accident consequence and cause subelements for proper analysis.

        RSPA's Approach for Improving Hazardous Liquid Accident Data
        New Reporting Threshold
        This notice proposes to lower the existing threshold for accident reporting for operators of hazardous liquid pipeline systems subject to RSPA regulations under Part 195. The existing threshold of 50 barrels would be lowered to the new threshold of 5 gallons. RSPA believes the consequence of spills as small as 5 gallons does not warrant full reporting to the extent justified for larger spills. Consequently, RSPA proposes to minimize the reporting burden for small spills by collecting only minimal information for spills from 5 gallons to less than 5 barrels, except where a spill of 5 gallons or more occurs in water. Spills between 5 gallons and less than 5 barrels that occur during normal maintenance activities are exempt if they are confined to the operator's property or pipeline right-of-way and they are cleaned up without delay. A spill of 5 or more barrels, or any accident reportable by the already existing criteria specified in section 195.50 will, as at present, require complete reporting.
        In addition, because of the proposed reduction in the minimum spill reporting threshold, the requirement in § 195.50(c) for reporting highly volatile liquid (HVL) releases as small as 5 barrels is no longer needed. The proposed rule requires reporting of all releases down to 5 barrels, including HVLs. Therefore, we propose to delete § 195.50(c).
        Improved Cause and Consequence Information
        RSPA proposes to further improve the usefulness of the information collected on the hazardous liquid accident form RSPA F 7000-1 by strengthening the cause and consequence detail information. For details on the proposed changes, see the proposed form RSPA F 7000-1 and the proposed Instructions for Completing Form RSPA F 7000-1 in Docket No. RSPA-01-8663. The proposed accident report form revision will enhance safety and environmental protection from risks that hazardous liquid pipelines pose to people and the environment by helping RSPA to better identify safety trends and issues, target solutions, and monitor effectiveness and compliance.
        Rulemaking Analyses
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
        RSPA does not consider this proposed rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. RSPA also does not consider this proposed rulemaking to be significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
        A copy of the Draft Regulatory Evaluation is available for review in the docket. This section summarizes the findings of the draft regulatory evaluation. This proposed rulemaking addresses the problems with the data collection of hazardous liquid pipeline accidents.
        Introduction
        In recent years, the usefulness of the hazardous liquid accident data collection has been found to be limited due to the level of detail and accuracy and the quality of the data collected. Recognizing the limitations to effective pipeline safety analysis that these data deficiencies cause, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General, and others have urged RSPA to make the pipeline safety data which RSPA collects more useful.
        This proposal amends the pipeline safety regulations to lower the reporting threshold for hazardous liquid pipeline spills from 50 barrels to 5 gallons, with an accompanying revision to the hazardous liquid accident form to improve its usefulness. On the revised accident form, reporting for spills from less than 5 barrels down to 5 gallons will require reporting minimal information, whereas any spill in water of 5 gallons or more, any spill of 5 barrels or more, or where otherwise reportable according to existing reporting criteria as outlined in 49 CFR 195.50, will require completion of the entire new proposed accident report. Additionally, RSPA proposes to further improve the usefulness of the information collected on the hazardous liquid accident form RSPA F 7000-1 by strengthening the cause and consequence detail information on the accident report.
        Benefits
        Accurate, meaningful pipeline safety incident information is needed for general trending of pipeline safety issues and for risk assessment applications, for deciding which pipelines need rehabilitation vs. replacement, for analyzing cost benefits, and for comparing individual operator performance with industry performance. This safety information is used by RSPA for daily decision making in RSPA's assessment of pipeline risks, regulatory development, and programmatic resource allocation. RSPA also uses the information in monitoring industry performance and regulatory compliance, and for planning company standard safety inspections.
        Costs
        RSPA estimates that it will take each operator 1 hour to complete the short form, and estimates the long form will take each operator 7 hours to complete.
        Based on a survey by the American Petroleum Institute (API), RSPA estimates the number of incidents reported annually will be 1,839. Of these reports, RSPA estimates that 427 will require the long form and 1,412 will require the short form.
        Below is RSPA's estimate for the new requirements and an estimate of the former requirement for comparison purposes.

        427 long forms × 7 hours = 2,989 hours.
        1,412 short forms × 1 hour = 1,422 hours.
        1,839 forms total; 4,411 hours total.

        If the average cost is $40 per hour, the total industry cost annually is $176,440 (4,411 × $40).
        The previous cost to industry was 166 reports × 6 hours = 996 × $40 = $39,840. The net increase of the proposed change in the reporting threshold and the proposed changes to the forms is $136,600 annually.
        Conclusion
        RSPA believes that the additional cost of $136,600 annually is a relatively modest burden on the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. The benefits accruing to RSPA and the pipeline industry through the increase in the number of reports and the more detailed data should easily outweigh this modest cost. This increase in information received should allow RSPA and the hazardous liquid pipeline industry to identify safety issues and trends in the present state of pipeline safety, and to provide information that will allow operators to make changes to procedures and practices that will ultimately reduce pipeline accidents and improve pipeline safety.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        Dividing the incremental cost increase of $136,600 by the approximately 200 hazardous pipeline operators shows the average incremental cost increase of this proposal is $683 per operator. Based on this small increase in costs to the industry of this proposed rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this proposed rulemaking would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you have any information that this conclusion about the impact on small entities is not correct, please provide that information to the public docket described in the Filing Information, Electronic Access, and General Program Information section of the preamble.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule contains information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)), the DOT has submitted a copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. The name of the information collection is “Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and Accident Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (2137-0047).” A copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis is available for review in the docket. This paperwork burden is an amendment to an already existing information collection that includes additional information requirements that are not a part of this rulemaking.
        The approximately 192 hazardous liquid pipeline operators will be required to submit approximately 1,839 incident reports annually. The total hour burden will be 4,411 hours costing $176,440 annually.

        Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection should direct them to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble. Comments must be sent within 60 days of the publication of this notice.
        The OMB is specifically interested in the following issues concerning the information collection:
        1. Evaluating whether the collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the DOT, including whether the information would have a practical use;
        2. Evaluating the accuracy of the DOT's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of assumptions used;
        3. Enhancing the quality, usefulness and clarity of the information to be collected; and
        4. Minimizing the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

        The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require a person to respond to a collection of information unless a valid OMB control number is displayed. The valid OMB control number for this information collection will be published in the Federal Register after it is approved by OMB. For more details, see the Paperwork Reduction Analysis available for copying and review in the public docket.
        Executive Order 13084
        The proposed 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 proposed rules would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would 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 would be the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have analyzed the proposed rules for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Because the proposed rule parallels present reporting requirements and practices, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed rule would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Generally, collection of information does not constitute an environmental impact. A final determination on environmental impact will be made after the end of the comment period. If you disagree with our preliminary conclusion, please submit your comments to the docket as described above.
        Executive Order 13132
        The proposed rules have been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). The proposed rule change 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 State and local governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Nevertheless, during our review of the existing hazardous liquid reporting requirements, representatives of state pipeline safety agencies gave us advice both in private sessions and in the form of formal recommendations for pursuing improved accident information. In addition, our pipeline safety advisory committees, which include representatives of state governments, have been briefed on our plans for improving accident data.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
          Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Incorporation by reference, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR Part 195 as follows:

          PART 195—TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
          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.

          2. Amend § 195.50 to revise paragraph (b), to remove paragraph (c), and to redesignate paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (c) through (e), to read as follows:

            § 195.50
            Reporting accidents.

            (b) Release of 5 gallons (19 liters) or more of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide, except that no report is required for a release of less than 5 barrels (0.8 cubic meters) if the release is:
            (1) Not one described in § 195.52(a)(4);
            (2) Attributable to a pipeline maintenance activity;
            (3) Confined to company property or pipeline right-of-way; and
            (4) Cleaned up promptly.

            Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 17, 2000.
            Stacey L. Gerard,
            Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 01-6822 Filed 3-19-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P