Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5305

2004, at 10 a.m. is rescheduled for 

Thursday, February 19, 2004, at 10 a.m. 

Written or electronically submitted 

public comments are due on February 

13, 2004. Outlines of topics to be 

discussed at the public hearing must be 

received by February 11, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being 

held in the auditorium of the Internal 

Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to 

building security procedures, visitors 

must enter at the Constitution Avenue 

entrance. Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–122379–02); Room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 

DC 20044. Submissions may be hand 

delivered Monday through Friday 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–122379–02) 

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, 

comments may be transmitted 

electronically via the Internet by 

submitting comments directly to the IRS 

Internet site at: http://www.irs.gov/regs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy 

R. Traynor of the Publication and 

Regulations Branch, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedures & Administration), 

at (202) 622–3693 (not a toll-free 

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of proposed rulemaking and notice of 

public hearing appearing in the Federal 

Register on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 

(68 FR 75186), announced that a public 

hearing on proposed regulations relating 

to practice before the Internal Revenue 

Service, would be held on Wednesday, 

February 18, 2004, beginning at 10 a.m., 

in the auditorium of the Internal 

Revenue Building at 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 

The date of the public hearing has 

changed. The hearing is scheduled for 

Thursday, February 19, 2004, beginning 

at 10 a.m., in the auditorium of the 

Internal Revenue Building at 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. Outlines of topics to be discussed 

at the public hearing must be received 

by February 11, 2004.

Dated: January 30, 2004. 

Richard S. Carro, 

Senior Advisor to the General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04–2297 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 

[Docket No. RSPA–98–4868 (gas), Notice 4; 

and RSPA–03–15864 (liquid), Notice 2] 

Gas and Hazardous Liquid Gathering 

Lines

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs 

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Clarification of rulemaking 

intentions and extension of time for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: RSPA’s Office of Pipeline 

Safety (RSPA/OPS) recently held public 

meetings in Austin, Texas, and 

Anchorage, Alaska, to receive public 

comment on the definition of ‘‘gathering 

line’’ and on the regulation of certain 

rural gas and hazardous liquid gathering 

lines. RSPA/OPS also invited the public 

to submit written comments by January 

17, 2004. RSPA/OPS’s pipeline safety 

advisory committees will discuss these 

gathering line issues at a public meeting 

on February 3–5, 2004, at the Dulles 

Marriott Hotel, Dulles, Virginia. This 

notice clarifies RSPA/OPS’s rulemaking 

approach to gathering lines regulation 

and explains the type of information 

RSPA/OPS is seeking. It also extends 

the deadline for written comments.

DATES: The revised deadline for 

submitting written comments is March 

4, 2004. However, late-filed comments 

will be considered as far as practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments directly to the dockets by any 

of the following methods: 

• Mail: Dockets Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Room 

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

20590–0001. Anyone wanting 

confirmation of mailed comments must 

include a self-addressed stamped 

postcard. 

• Hand delivery or courier: Room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The Dockets Facility is 

open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov, 

click on ‘‘Comment/Submissions’’ and 

follow instructions at the site.

All written comments should identify 

the gas or liquid docket number and 

notice number stated in the heading of 

this notice. 

Docket access. For copies of this 

notice or other material in the dockets, 

you may contact the Dockets Facility by 

phone (202–366–9329) or visit the 

facility at the above street address. For 

Web access to the dockets to read and 

download filed material, go to http://

dms.dot.gov/search. Then type in the 

last four digits of the gas or liquid 

docket number shown in the heading of 

this notice, and click on ‘‘Search.’’

Privacy Act Information. Anyone can 

search the electronic form of all 

comments filed in any of our dockets by 

the name of the individual submitting 

the comment (or signing the comment, 

if submitted for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the April 11, 2000 issue of the 

Federal Register (65 FR 19477) or go to 

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405–954–

7220 or by e-mail at 

dewitt_burdeaux@tsi.jccbi.gov regarding 

the subject matter of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Because of disagreements over the 

meaning of gas ‘‘gathering line’’ in 49 

CFR part 192, RSPA/OPS has twice 

proposed to redefine the term. The first 

proposal was withdrawn (43 FR 42773; 

September, 1978), and the second (56 

FR 48505; September 25, 1991) remains 

open. In reaction to unfavorable 

comments on these proposals, RSPA/

OPS delayed final action pending the 

collection and consideration of further 

information on the gas ‘‘gathering line’’

issue. In contrast, RSPA/OPS has had 

little difficulty applying the definition 

of petroleum ‘‘gathering line’’ in 49 CFR 

part 195. 

Following the second proposal to 

define gas ‘‘gathering line,’’ Congress 

directed DOT to define ‘‘gathering line’’

for both gas and hazardous liquid 

pipelines, and, ‘‘if appropriate,’’ define 

as ‘‘regulated gathering line’’ those rural 

gathering lines that, because of specific 

physical characteristics, should be 

regulated (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)). In 

furtherance of the open rulemaking 

proposal and the congressional 

directives, RSPA/OPS held an internet 

discussion that focused on a definition 

offered by the Gas Processors 

Association (GPA) (Docket No. RSPA–

98–4868; 64 FR 12147; March 11, 1999). 

However, follow-up action stalled 

because RSPA/OPS and its associated 

state pipeline safety agencies were 

concerned that physical pipeline 

features referenced in the GPA 

definition were changeable. As a 

stopgap, while deliberating on a suitable 

alternative to the 1991 proposal, RSPA/

OPS published an advisory bulletin 

reminding pipeline operators that we 

would continue to define gas gathering 

5306 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

based on historical interpretations and 

court precedents until further notice (67 

FR 64447; October 18, 2002). 

Public Meetings 

In late 2003, RSPA/OPS held public 

meetings in Austin, Texas, and 

Anchorage, Alaska, to seek additional 

public comments on how to respond to 

the congressional directives on 

gathering lines. Notices of the meetings 

were published in the Federal Register

on November 5, 2003 (68 FR 62555) and 

December 1, 2003 (68 FR 67129). During 

these meetings, RSPA/OPS suggested an 

approach to determining which 

segments of rural gathering lines should 

be regulated. The approach, which we 

used in a consent order issued to Hanley 

& Bird, Inc., a Pennsylvania Gas 

Production and Gathering Operator, is 

based on a density of five or more 

dwelling units per thousand linear feet 

of pipeline. The order may be viewed at 

http://ops.dot.gov/regions/easterndoc/

cpf13002o.wpd.

RSPA/OPS suggested this approach to 

generate public comments on how to 

define ‘‘regulated gathering line,’’ not to 

describe a planned course of action. In 

addition, we hoped the suggestion 

would result in comments on the level 

of regulation appropriate to the 

characteristics and perceived risk of 

gathering lines in inhabited areas. 

After the public meetings, we became 

concerned that the issues listed in the 

meeting notices may have caused 

confusion about what information we 

are seeking. To promote informed 

public participation in resolving the 

issues and in the advisory committee 

meetings, we decided to publish this 

notice to clarify our regulatory 

intentions. 

Extension of Comment Period 

So that interested persons may 

consider the clarifications, this notice 

extends the time for written comments 

from January 17, 2004, to March 4, 2004. 

Although we are grateful for the 

comments we have already received and 

the efforts made to meet the January 17, 

2004, deadline, we hope the extension 

will encourage even more comments. 

Advisory Committee Meetings 

Another opportunity for the public to 

comment on defining gas ‘‘gathering 

line’’ and ‘‘regulated gathering line’’

will occur February 3–5, 2004, at a 

meeting of RSPA/OPS’s pipeline safety 

advisory committees at the Dulles 

Marriott Hotel, Dulles, Virginia. An 

announcement of the meeting was 

published in the December 31, 2003, 

issue of the Federal Register (68 FR 

75727). The advisory committee docket, 

RSPA–98–4407, is open for comments 

on all matters before the committees, 

including gathering line issues. 

Specific Requests for Comment 

The public meeting notices called 

attention to seven gathering line issues 

we believe are important. They are 

repeated below, along with additional 

clarification. We hope this will provide 

the public with the information needed 

to comment on the important gathering 

lines issues. 

(1) The point where gas production 

ends and gas gathering begins. 

Clarification. RSPA/OPS wants to 

adopt definitions of gas gathering line 

and gas production that together will 

serve to identify the beginning of a gas 

gathering line. We recognize that some 

state oil and gas commissions regulate 

gas production facilities for safety and 

operational purposes. RSPA/OPS does 

not wish to create any regulatory 

overlap, but seeks to develop a 

definition that leaves no gaps between 

oil and gas commission oversight and 

oversight by RSPA/OPS or its state 

partners. The end of production should 

be a fixed asset, one that is easy to 

identify and not easy to change. 

(2) The point where gas gathering 

ends and gas transmission or 

distribution begins. 

Clarification. We are seeking to 

develop a definition of gas gathering 

line that clearly identifies the endpoint 

of the line. The definition should be 

broad enough to apply to widely varying 

gathering system configurations, yet be 

simple enough to allow consistent 

application by regulators and pipeline 

operators. 

(3) In defining ‘‘regulated gathering 

line,’’ whether we should consider 

factors besides those specified by 

Congress. For example, should we 

consider population density (by census 

or house count), or, for hazardous liquid 

lines, potential for environmental 

damage. 

Clarification. Congress specified 

factors that must be considered in 

defining ‘‘regulated gathering line,’’ or 

in deciding which rural gathering lines 

should be regulated. These factors are 

‘‘location, length of line from the well 

site, operating pressure, throughput, and 

composition of the gas or hazardous 

liquid.’’ We are seeking comment on 

which, if any, additional factors should 

be considered. For example, we believe 

a high concentration of hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) is an important factor, and would 

like comments on ways to provide 

public safety in case of H2S releases 

from gathering lines. RSPA/OPS is 

considering several alternatives for the 

definition of gas gathering. The first is 

the Hanley & Bird approach described 

above. We are seeking comments on 

whether dwelling density would be an 

appropriate way to define regulated 

segments, and, if so, what the density 

should be in relation to pipeline length. 

We are also seeking comment on 

whether a corridor approach, such as 

the class location approach in § 192.5, 

would be appropriate, and, if so, 

whether the corridor width should 

differ according to pipe hoop stress, 

such as 20% or 30% of specified 

minimum yield strength (SMYS). We 

are considering the type of location that 

could be impacted by a release of gas at 

points along a pipeline. We would like 

comments on how to calculate the risk 

zone of a gas gathering line, or impact 

area of a release, such as Part 192 

requires for gas transmission lines in 

high consequence areas.

(4) Whether Part 195 should apply to 

rural gathering lines that operate at 

more than 20 percent of SMYS, or that 

could adversely affect an ‘‘unusually 

sensitive area’’ as defined in § 195.6?

(Note: certain crude oil gathering lines are, by 

law, exempt from safety regulation.)

Clarification. Should ‘‘regulated 

gathering line’’ include rural petroleum 

gathering lines that operate at more than 

20 percent of SMYS, or that could 

adversely affect an ‘‘unusually sensitive 

area’’ as defined in § 195.6? If so, should 

Part 195 apply in its entirety to these 

lines? 

(5) If you recommend safety 

regulations for rural gas or hazardous 

liquid gathering lines, to which rural 

lines would the regulations apply and 

why, approximately how many miles 

would be covered by the regulations, 

and what would be the estimated cost 

per mile of complying with the 

regulations? 

Clarification. If you support 

regulation of rural gathering lines, we 

are interested in your justification for 

regulation, or why you think they need 

safety regulation. If you want to regulate 

only some rural gathering lines, we 

would like to know your rationale for 

deciding which rural gathering lines 

RSPA/OPS should regulate. 

(6) The approximate mileage of rural 

gathering lines not now covered by Part 

195. 

Clarification. Not required. 

(7) Whether safety regulations for gas 

or hazardous liquid rural gathering lines 

operating at low stress (e.g., 20 percent 

or less of SMYS) or a specified pressure 

for plastic lines should be fewer and 

possibly less stringent than regulations 

for other rural gathering lines? 

Clarification. We are considering a 

tiered approach to regulation in which 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5307

increasing portions of Part 192 or Part 

195 would apply to pipelines depending 

on their risk to the public or the 

environment. If you think this would be 

a reasonable approach, we would like 

comments on which regulations should 

apply to different risk levels. If you 

think hoop stress should define risk, we 

would like comment on which 

regulations should apply according to 

different stress levels. For plastic pipe, 

we are interested in views on what the 

risk levels should be and how the 

regulations should vary and, if pressure 

were to define risk, what the pressure 

should be. 

Other Considerations 

Non-rural gathering lines. Under Parts 

192 and 195, onshore gathering lines are 

considered rural—and unregulated—if 

they lie outside the limits of any 

incorporated or unincorporated city, 

town, village, or any other designated 

residential or commercial area, such as 

a subdivision, a business or shopping 

center, or community development. 

Conversely, some gathering lines or 

portions of lines that are inside these 

limits—and now regulated—are similar 

to rural lines in that they are not in, or 

close to, inhabited areas. Should the 

risk-based approach to regulating rural 

gathering lines also apply to the 

regulation of non-rural gathering lines? 

If so, assuming population density was 

the risk-based approach, what reduction 

in currently regulated mileage might 

result from particular density levels? 

What would be the associated savings in 

cost of compliance? 

Compliance time. In the public 

meetings, we discussed time lines for 

compliance. What would be the 

appropriate time for operators to 

achieve compliance? We have also 

considered establishing milestones for 

achieving compliance, including early 

compliance dates for easily 

implemented regulations, coupled with 

longer times for more complex 

regulations requiring greater capital 

expenditures. Does this appear to be an 

appropriate path and, if so, what should 

these times be and which categories of 

regulations should fall into which time 

frames?

Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 

CFR 1.53.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 

2004. 

James K. O’Steen, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline 

Safety.

[FR Doc. 04–2310 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 040130031–4031–01; I.D. 

012704D]

RIN 0648–AR92

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; 

Proposed Emergency Rule to Maintain 

an Area Access Program for the 

Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery in Hudson 

Canyon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed emergency rule; 

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This proposed emergency rule 

would implement measures to establish 

on March 1, 2004, the area access 

program for the Hudson Canyon Area, 

as proposed in Amendment 10 to the 

Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). These 

measures would be in place for 180 days 

or until such time that Amendment 10 

can be implemented, which will be 

published later in the Federal Register. 

This action is necessary to avoid 

localized overfishing of sea scallops in 

the Hudson Canyon Area, and would 

help ensure that fishing mortality rates 

do not exceed the target thresholds 

established in the FMP.

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, 

February 19, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed 

emergency rule should be sent to 

Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, Northeast Regional 

Office, NMFS, 1 Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. Please 

mark the envelope ‘‘Comments - 

Emergency Rule to Maintain an Area 

Access Program for the Atlantic Sea 

Scallop Fishery in Hudson Canyon.’’

Comments also may be sent via 

facsimile (fax) to 978–281–9135. 

Comments will not be accepted if 

submitted via e-mail or Internet. Copies 

of the Draft Environmental Assessment 

(Draft EA) and the Regulatory Impact 

Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (RIR/IRFA) and any other 

documents supporting this action are 

available from the Regional Office at the 

address specified here, and are 

accessible via the Internet at http://

www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/nero.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, 978–281–9288, fax 978–281–

9135, e-mail 

peter.christopher@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Hudson Canyon Area (and the Virginia 

Beach Area) were first closed to sea 

scallop fishing in 1998 by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries) through an interim rule, 

enacted in consultation with the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

(Council) to protect an abundance of 

small scallops that would have been 

vulnerable to excessive mortality if left 

unprotected. On March 29, 1999, 

Amendment 7 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Atlantic Sea 

Scallop Fishery (FMP) extended the 

closures until March 1, 2001, to allow 

scallops within the areas to grow and 

spawn. Frameworks 14 and 15, 

implemented on May 1, 2001, and 

March 1, 2003, respectively, reopened 

the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach 

Areas to controlled scallop fishing 

because the area closures had provided 

sufficient time for the scallop resource 

within the areas to grow to a size 

suitable for harvest.

The regulations for the sea scallop 

fishery for the 2003 fishing year (March 

1, 2003–February 29, 2004) include, 

among other measures, an area access 

program to govern the fishery within the 

Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access 

Area (Hudson Canyon Area). The 

program establishes an overall total 

allowable catch (TAC) for the area, 

limits the number of trips that can be 

taken into the area, establishes a scallop 

trip limit, and establishes a minimum 

number of days-at-sea (DAS) that will be 

deducted for each access trip from the 

vessel’s DAS allocation. The Council 

adopted Amendment 10 to the FMP in 

September 2003, and submitted it for 

review by the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) on December 19, 2003. 

Among the measures proposed in 

Amendment 10 is a continuation of an 

area access program for the Hudson 

Canyon Area, with some revisions to the 

program. Amendment 10 has been made 

available to the public for comment 

through March 15, 2004.

The Council’s December 2003 

submission of Amendment 10 means 

that it will not be possible to implement 

the action, if approved, by March 1, 

2004. Thus, the existing Hudson Canyon 

area access program will expire at the 

end of the fishing year (February 29, 

2004) and, on March 1, 2004, the 

Hudson Canyon Area will open to 

fishing without an area access program. 

Absent another regulatory action, the