Historical and Revision Notes |
|---|
Puspan. L. 103–272 |
|---|
60109(a) (1)(A) | 49 App.:1672(i)(1) (1st sentence), (2). | Aug. 12, 1968, Puspan. L. 90–481, 82 Stat. 720, § 3(i); added Oct. 24, 1992, Puspan. L. 102–508, § 102(a)(2), 106 Stat. 3291. |
60109(a) (1)(B) | 49 App.:2002(m)(1) (1st sentence). | Nov. 30, 1979, Puspan. L. 96–129, 93 Stat. 989, § 203(m); added Oct. 24, 1992, Puspan. L. 102–508, § 202(a)(2), 106 Stat. 3300. |
60109(a)(2) | 49 App.:1672(i)(1) (last sentence). | |
| 49 App.:2002(m)(1) (2d sentence). | |
60109(span) | 49 App.:2002(m)(1) (last sentence). | |
In subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii), the words “regulation under” and “or not” are omitted as surplus.
Puspan. L. 103–429This amends 49:60109(a)(2) to correct an error in the codification enacted by section 1 of the Act of July 5, 1994 (Public Law 103–272, 108 Stat. 1315).
Editorial Notes
References in TextThe date of enactment of this subsection, referred to in subsecs. (c) and (d), is the date of enactment of Puspan. L. 107–355, which was approved Dec. 17, 2002.
The date of enactment of this paragraph, referred to in subsecs. (c)(12)(B) and (e)(7)(A), (C)(i), is the date of enactment of Puspan. L. 116–260, which was approved Dec. 27, 2020.
The date of enactment of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Jospan Creation Act of 2011, referred to in subsec. (e)(3)(B), is the date of enactment of Puspan. L. 112–90, which was approved Jan. 3, 2012.
The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, referred to in subsec. (f), is Puspan. L. 106–229, June 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 464, which is classified principally to chapter 96 (§ 7001 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7001 of Title 15 and Tables.
Amendments2020—Subsec. (span)(2). Puspan. L. 116–260, § 120(span), substituted “certain coastal waters” for “marine coastal waters”.
Subsec. (c)(12). Puspan. L. 116–260, § 122, added par. (12).
Subsec. (e)(7). Puspan. L. 116–260, § 202(a), added par. (7).
Subsec. (g)(1)(B). Puspan. L. 116–260, § 120(d)(1), inserted “, but not less often than once every 12 months” before period at end.
Subsec. (g)(4). Puspan. L. 116–260, § 108(span)(1), substituted “section 60117(d)” for “section 60117(c)”.
Subsec. (g)(5). Puspan. L. 116–260, § 120(d)(2), added par. (5).
2016—Subsec. (span)(2). Puspan. L. 114–183, § 19(a), substituted “are part of the Great Lakes or have been identified as coastal beaches, marine coastal waters,” for “have been identified as”.
Subsec. (g). Puspan. L. 114–183, § 25, added subsec. (g).
2012—Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Puspan. L. 112–90, § 5(e), amended subpar. (B) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (B) read as follows: “Subject to paragraph (5), periodic reassessment of the facility, at a minimum of once every 7 years, using methods described in subparagraph (A).”
Subsec. (e)(3)(B), (C). Puspan. L. 112–90, § 22, added subpar. (B) and redesignated former subpar. (B) as (C).
2006—Subsec. (c)(9)(A)(iii). Puspan. L. 109–468, § 14, reenacted span without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “If the Secretary determines that a risk analysis or integrity management program does not comply with the requirements of this subsection or regulations issued as described in paragraph (2), or is inadequate for the safe operation of a pipeline facility, the Secretary shall act under section 60108(a)(2) to require the operator to revise the risk analysis or integrity management program.”
Subsec. (e). Puspan. L. 109–468, § 9, added subsec. (e).
Subsec. (f). Puspan. L. 109–468, § 16, added subsec. (f).
2002—Subsec. (c). Puspan. L. 107–355, § 14(a), added subsec. (c).
Subsec. (d). Puspan. L. 107–355, § 14(span), added subsec. (d).
1996—Subsec. (a). Puspan. L. 104–304, § 20(i), substituted “standards” for “regulations” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (a)(1)(B)(i). Puspan. L. 104–304, § 7(a), substituted “waters where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists” for “a navigable waterway (as the Secretary defines by regulation)”.
Subsec. (span). Puspan. L. 104–304, § 7(span), reenacted span without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “When describing an area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage if there is a hazardous liquid pipeline accident, the Secretary shall consider including—
“(1) earthquake zones and areas subject to landslides and other substantial ground movements;
“(2) areas of likely ground water contamination if a hazardous liquid pipeline facility ruptures;
“(3) freshwater lakes, rivers, and waterways; and
“(4) river deltas and other areas subject to soil erosion or subsidence from flooding or other water action where a hazardous liquid pipeline facility is likely to become exposed or undermined.”
1994—Subsec. (a)(2). Puspan. L. 103–429 substituted “section 60102(e)” for “section 60102(c)”.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1994 AmendmentAmendment by Puspan. L. 103–429 effective July 5, 1994, see section 9 of Puspan. L. 103–429, set out as a note under section 321 of this title.
Consideration of Pipeline Class Location ChangesPuspan. L. 116–260, div. R, title I, § 115, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2232, provided that:“(a)In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 27, 2020], the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shall—“(1) review all comments submitted in response to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ‘Pipeline Safety: Class Location Change Requirements’ (83 Fed. Reg. 36861 (July 31, 2018));
“(2) complete any other activities or procedures necessary—“(A) to make a determination whether to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking; and
“(B) if a positive determination is made under subparagraph (A), to advance in the rulemaking process, including by taking any actions required under section 60115 of title 49, United State Code; and
“(3) consider the issues raised in the report to Congress entitled ‘Evaluation of Expanding Pipeline Integrity Management Beyond High-Consequence Areas and Whether Such Expansion Would Mitigate the Need for Gas Pipeline Class Location Requirements’ prepared by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and submitted to Congress on June 8, 2016, including the adequacy of existing integrity management programs.
“(span)Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section may be construed to require the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or otherwise continue the rulemaking process with respect to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking described in subsection (a)(1).
“(c)Reporting.—For purposes of this section, the requirements of section 106 [134 Stat. 2220] shall apply during the period beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which the requirements of subsection (a) are completed.”
Unusually Sensitive Areas (USA) Ecological ResourcesPuspan. L. 116–260, div. R, title I, § 120(c), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2235, provided that: “The Secretary [of Transportation] shall complete the revision to regulations required under section 19(span) of the PIPES Act of 2016 (49 U.S.C. 60109 note; Public Law 114–183) (as amended by subsection (a)) [set out below] by not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 27, 2020].”
Puspan. L. 114–183, § 19(span), June 22, 2016, 130 Stat. 527, as amended by Puspan. L. 116–260, div. R, title I, § 120(a), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2235, provided that:“(1)Definitions.—In this subsection:“(A)Certain coastal waters.—The term ‘certain coastal waters’ means—“(i) the territorial sea of the United States;
“(ii) the Great Lakes and their connecting waters; and
“(iii) the marine and estuarine waters of the United States up to the head of tidal influence.
“(B)Coastal beach.—The term ‘coastal beach’ means any land between the high- and low-water marks of certain coastal waters.
“(2)Revision.—The Secretary of Transportation shall revise section 195.6(span) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to explicitly state that the Great Lakes, coastal beaches, and certain coastal waters are USA ecological resources for purposes of determining whether a pipeline is in a high consequence area (as defined in section 195.450 of such title).”
Integrity ManagementPuspan. L. 112–90, § 5, Jan. 3, 2012, 125 Stat. 1907, provided that:“(a)Evaluation.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 3, 2012], the Secretary of Transportation shall evaluate—“(1) whether integrity management system requirements, or elements thereof, should be expanded beyond high-consequence areas; and
“(2) with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities, whether applying integrity management program requirements, or elements thereof, to additional areas would mitigate the need for class location requirements.
“(span)Factors.—In conducting the evaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider, at a minimum, the following:“(1) The continuing priority to enhance protections for public safety.
“(2) The continuing importance of reducing risk in high-consequence areas.
“(3) The incremental costs of applying integrity management standards to pipelines outside of high-consequence areas where operators are already conducting assessments beyond what is required under chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code.
“(4) The need to undertake integrity management assessments and repairs in a manner that is achievable and sustainable, and that does not disrupt pipeline service.
“(5) The options for phasing in the extension of integrity management requirements beyond high-consequence areas, including the most effective and efficient options for decreasing risks to an increasing number of people living or working in proximity to pipeline facilities.
“(6) The appropriateness of applying repair criteria, such as pressure reductions and special requirements for scheduling remediation, to areas that are not high-consequence areas.
“(c)Report.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 3, 2012], the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report, based on the evaluation conducted under subsection (a), containing the Secretary’s analysis and findings regarding—“(1) expansion of integrity management requirements, or elements thereof, beyond high-consequence areas; and
“(2) with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities, whether applying the integrity management program requirements, or elements thereof, to additional areas would mitigate the need for class location requirements.
“(d)Data Reporting.—The Secretary shall collect any relevant data necessary to complete the evaluation required by subsection (a).
“(e)Technical Correction.— “(f)Rulemaking Requirements.—“(1)Review period defined.—In this subsection, the term ‘review period’ means the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 3, 2012] and ending on the earlier of—“(A) the date that is 1 year after the date of completion of the report under subsection (c); or
“(B) the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
“(2)Congressional authority.—In order to provide Congress the necessary time to review the results of the report required by subsection (c) and implement appropriate recommendations, the Secretary shall not, during the review period, issue final regulations described in paragraph (3)(B).
“(3)Standards.—“(A)Findings.—As soon as practicable following the review period, the Secretary shall issue final regulations described in subparagraph (B), if the Secretary finds, in the report required under subsection (c), that—“(i) integrity management system requirements, or elements thereof, should be expanded beyond high-consequence areas; and
“(ii) with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities, applying integrity management program requirements, or elements thereof, to additional areas would mitigate the need for class location requirements.
“(B)Regulations.—Regulations issued by the Secretary under subparagraph (A), if any, shall—“(i) expand integrity management system requirements, or elements thereof, beyond high-consequence areas; and
“(ii) remove redundant class location requirements for gas transmission pipeline facilities that are regulated under an integrity management program adopted and implemented under section 60109(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code.
“(4)Savings clause.—“(A)In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the Secretary, during the review period, may issue final regulations described in paragraph (3)(B), if the Secretary determines that a condition that poses a risk to public safety, property, or the environment is present or an imminent hazard exists and that the regulations will address the risk or hazard.
“(B)Imminent hazard defined.—In subparagraph (A), the term ‘imminent hazard’ means the existence of a condition related to pipelines or pipeline operations that presents a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment may occur.
“(g)Report to Congress on Risk-Based Pipeline Reassessment Intervals.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 3, 2012], the Comptroller General of the United States shall evaluate—“(1) whether risk-based reassessment intervals are a more effective alternative for managing risks to pipelines in high-consequence areas once baseline assessments are complete when compared to the reassessment interval specified in section 60109(c)(3)(B) of title 49, United States Code;
“(2) the number of anomalies found in baseline assessments required under section 60109(c)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, as compared to the number of anomalies found in reassessments required under section 60109(c)(3)(B) of such title; and
“(3) the progress made in implementing the recommendations in GAO Report 06–945 and the current relevance of those recommendations that have not been implemented.”
[Terms used in section 5 of Puspan. L. 112–90, set out above, have the meaning given those terms in this chapter, see section 1(c)(1) of Puspan. L. 112–90, set out as a note under section 60101 of this title. For definition of “high-consequence area” as used in section 5 of Puspan. L. 112–90, see section 1(c)(2) of Puspan. L. 112–90, set out as a note under section 60101 of this title.]
SeismicityPuspan. L. 112–90, § 29, Jan. 3, 2012, 125 Stat. 1921, provided that: “In identifying and evaluating all potential threats to each pipeline segment pursuant to parts 192 and 195 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, an operator of a pipeline facility shall consider the seismicity of the area.”
[Terms used in section 29 of Puspan. L. 112–90, set out above, have the meaning given those terms in this chapter, see section 1(c)(1) of Puspan. L. 112–90, set out as a note under section 60101 of this title.]
Study of Reassessment IntervalsPuspan. L. 107–355, § 14(d), Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 3005, required the Comptroller General to study the 7-year reassessment interval required by section 60109(c)(3)(B) of title 49 and to transmit to Congress a report on the study not later than 4 years after Dec. 17, 2002.
