52504 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9N, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated September 1, 2005, and 

effective September 15, 2005, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6010 VOR Federal Airways 

* * * * * 

V–2 [Revised] 

From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses 

Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; 

Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° 

and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; 

Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 

miles, 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 

miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 

miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; 

Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; 

Lone Rock, WI; Madison, WI; Badger, WI; 

Muskegon, MI; Lansing, MI; Salem, MI; INT 

Salem 082° (085°M) and Aylmer, ON, 

Canada, 261° (269°M) radials; Aylmer; INT 

Aylmer 086° and Buffalo, NY, 259° radials; 

Buffalo; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, 

NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and 

Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner. The 

airspace within Canada is excluded. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 28, 

2006. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules. 

[FR Doc. E6–14744 Filed 9–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0436; FRL–8214–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Ford Motor Company Adjusted 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a January 4, 2006, request from Illinois 

for a site specific revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Ford 

Motor Company (Ford). The revision 

will allow Ford to discontinue use of its 

Stage II vapor recovery system (Stage II) 

at its Chicago Assembly Plant. In place 

of Stage II, Ford will comply with the 

standards of the Federal onboard 

refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) 

regulations, as well as meet other minor 

conditions. The exclusive use of ORVR 

will provide at least an equivalent 

amount of gasoline vapor capture as 

Stage II. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2006–0436, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Henning, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, State and Tribal Planning 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–4882, 

henning.julie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 17, 2006. 

Norman Niedergang, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E6–14544 Filed 9–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 195 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2003–15864; Notice 3] 

RIN 2137–AD98 

Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually 

Sensitive Areas From Rural Onshore 

Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and 

Low-Stress Lines 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to extend 

pipeline safety regulations to rural 

onshore hazardous liquid gathering 

lines and low-stress lines within a 

defined buffer of previously defined 

‘‘unusually sensitive areas.’’ These are 

non-populated areas requiring extra 

protection because of the presence of 

sole source drinking water resources, 

endangered species, or other ecological 

resources. 

This proposal will define ‘‘regulated 

rural onshore gathering lines’’ and 

‘‘regulated rural onshore low-stress 

lines’’ and require operators of the lines 

to comply with certain safety 

requirements. These proposed safety 

requirements will address the most 

common threats to the integrity of these 

rural lines: corrosion and third-party 

damage. This proposal is intended to 

provide additional integrity protection 

for unusually sensitive areas that could 

be affected by these lines and improve 

public confidence in the safety of 

hazardous liquid rural onshore 

gathering and low-stress lines. 

DATES: Persons interested in submitting 

written comments on the rules proposed 

in this document must do so by 

November 6, 2006. PHMSA will 

consider late filed comments so far as 

practicable. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52505 

ADDRESSES: You may send written 

comments to the docket by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Dockets Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Room 

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 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 ‘‘Comments/Submissions’’ and 

follow instructions at the site. 

Alternatively, go to http:// 

regulations.gov. 

All written comments should identify 

the docket number and notice number 

stated in the heading of this notice. 

Docket access. For copies of this 

notice or other material in the docket, 

you may contact the Dockets Facility by 

phone (202–366–9329) or go to the hand 

delivery address. For Web access to the 

docket to read and download filed 

material, go to http://dms.dot.gov/ 

search. Then type in the last five digits 

of the docket number shown in the 

heading of this notice, and click on 

‘‘Search.’’

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments filed in any of 

DOT’s dockets by the name of the 

individual filing the comment (or 

signing the comment, if filed for an 

entity such as an association, business, 

or labor union). 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@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

a. History 

Over the past six years, PHMSA has 

designed and executed a risk-based 

system approach to oversight of the 

national pipeline infrastructure. This 

approach is embodied in the ‘‘Integrity 

Management Program’’ of the agency 

and its budget. The program has many 

elements, including the data that 

supports the agency’s decision making, 

regulatory framework, enforcement 

program, training and preparation of 

Federal and State inspectors, research 

and development to advance integrity 

assessment and management, and 

performance measurement and 

reporting. We have sought advice on 

each aspect of the program at the 

conceptual stage from our technical 

advisory committee members and in 

public meetings. 

As to regulatory framework, we 

undertook rulemaking projects on a riskprioritized basis, acting first on those 

parts of the infrastructure that posed the 

greatest risk to people and the 

environment. To begin the program, we 

defined high consequence areas and 

mapped the locations on the National 

Pipeline Mapping System, including 

areas unusually sensitive to 

environmental damage, which we 

previously defined in our 2000 

regulation. Since 2000, we have 

completed and implemented regulations 

that provided integrity management 

protections for people and the 

environment that could be affected by a 

failure from high pressure, large and 

small hazardous liquid pipelines and 

provided protections to people that 

could be affected by high pressure gas 

transmission pipelines. We recently 

completed our gas gathering lines 

regulation by taking an integrity-related 

approach to protecting people from gas 

gathering lines. We began consideration 

of the current regulatory initiative in 

2003 and discussed it during our 

technical advisory committee meetings, 

and at public meetings in 2004. This is 

the remaining element in the regulatory 

framework designed to protect 

unusually sensitive areas from 

hazardous liquid pipelines in rural 

areas. 

b. PHMSA’s Safety Rules for Hazardous 

Liquid Pipelines Exempt Rural LowStress Lines and Gathering Lines 

Low-stress lines generally transport 

hazardous liquid at low-stress levels for 

relatively short distances to and from 

refineries and terminals, while gathering 

lines transport petroleum products from 

production facilities to downstream 

locations, such as a refinery or 

processing plant. 

PHMSA’s safety rules for hazardous 

liquid pipelines (49 CFR part 195) apply 

to both offshore and onshore gathering 

and low-stress lines. PHMSA currently 

regulates gathering lines in populated 

areas, and those in rural areas in the 

inlets of the Gulf of Mexico. PHMSA 

also regulates low-stress lines that are 

located in populated areas or cross 

commercially navigable waterways. It 

also regulates any low-stress line 

transporting highly volatile liquids. 

These lines are subject to all of the 

regulatory requirements in part 195. 

This proposal impacts some of the 

onshore rural gathering lines and lowstress lines that PHMSA currently 

exempts from all or portions of the part 

195 regulatory requirements. Onshore 

gathering lines in rural areas are exempt 

from all part 195 rules except 

requirements for inspection and burial 

in Gulf of Mexico inlets (§ 195.1(b)(4)). 

Part 195 defines ‘‘gathering line’’ as a 

pipeline 85⁄8 inches or less in nominal 

outside diameter that transports 

petroleum from a production facility. 

The term ‘‘production facility’’ is 

defined as piping or equipment used in 

the production, extraction, recovery, 

lifting, stabilization, separation, or 

treating of petroleum or carbon dioxide, 

and associated storage or measurement. 

To qualify, piping or equipment must be 

used to extract petroleum or carbon 

dioxide from the ground or facilities 

where petroleum or carbon dioxide is 

produced and prepared for 

transportation by pipeline. This 

includes piping between treatment 

plants that extract carbon dioxide and 

facilities used for the injection of carbon 

dioxide for recovery operations. The 

term ‘‘petroleum’’ means crude oil, 

condensate, natural gasoline, natural gas 

liquids, and liquefied petroleum gas. 

Also, ‘‘rural area’’ means 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. 

Part 195 defines ‘‘low-stress’’ as a 

hazardous liquid pipeline operated in 

its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent 

or less of the specified minimum yield 

strength (SMYS) of the line pipe. SMYS 

is the minimum yield strength, 

expressed in p.s.i. (kPa) gage, prescribed 

by the specification under which the 

material is purchased from the 

manufacturer. Low-stress lines in rural 

areas are exempt from part 195 if they 

transport nonvolatile petroleum 

products and are located outside a 

waterway currently used for commercial 

navigation. Under this proposal, some of 

these rural lines will no longer be 

exempt if within a defined buffer zone 

of an unusually sensitive area. This 

proposal will not affect other exempt 

low-stress lines, specifically pipelines 

subject to safety regulations of the U.S. 

Coast Guard, or those pipelines that 

serve certain refining and terminal 

facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1- 

mile long (measured outside of facility 

grounds) and does not cross an offshore 

area or a waterway currently used for 

commercial navigation. 

c. Statutory Authority 

Except for a 1991 requirement 

establishing inspection and burial rules 

for pipelines, including rural gathering 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
52506 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1Although these lines are not regulated under 

part 195, PHMSA’s rules for onshore oil spill 

response plans (49 CFR part 194) cover many rural 

crude oil gathering lines and low-stress lines. Part 

194 regulations apply to oil pipelines that could 

cause substantial harm to the environment by 

spilling oil into or on any navigable water of the 

United States or adjoining shoreline. 

2 In addition to these requirements related 

specifically to regulated gathering lines, under the 

Federal pipeline safety law, PHMSA must consider 

various other factors in prescribing pipeline safety 

rules (see 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)). 

lines, located in Gulf of Mexico inlets, 

from 1979 until 1992, PHMSA did not 

have statutory authority to regulate rural 

gathering lines.1 It was not until the 

Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (codified at 

49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(22)), that Congress 

gave DOT authority to regulate certain 

rural gathering lines. This legislation 

directed DOT to define the term 

‘‘gathering line’’ by October 24, 1994, 

and the term ‘‘regulated gathering line’’

by October 24, 1995 (49 U.S.C. 

60101(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2)(A)). 

Four years later, in the Accountable 

Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–304), Congress 

moderated its directive to define 

‘‘regulated gathering line’’ by adding the 

words ‘‘if appropriate’’ (49 U.S.C. 

60101(b)(2)(A)). Congress also gave DOT 

specific authority to collect information 

from gathering line operators related to 

deciding whether and to what extent to 

regulate rural gathering lines (49 U.S.C. 

60117(b)). Because of the need to 

regulate the safety of certain rural 

petroleum gathering lines (as explained 

in section II of this preamble), we think 

it is now appropriate to define the term 

‘‘regulated gathering line’’ for hazardous 

liquid transportation. 

In defining ‘‘regulated gathering line’’

for hazardous liquid transportation, 

PHMSA is required by statute to 

consider various physical characteristics 

to decide which rural onshore gathering 

lines need safety regulation. These 

characteristics include location, length 

of line from the well site, operating 

pressure, throughput, and composition 

of the transported hazardous liquid (49 

U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B)(i)). 

Further, the statute states a ‘‘regulated 

gathering line’’ may not include ‘‘a 

crude oil [petroleum] gathering line that 

has a nominal diameter of not more than 

6 inches, is operated at low pressure, 

and is located in a rural area that is not 

unusually sensitive to environmental 

damage’’ (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(B)(ii)).2

In other words, in rural areas unusually 

sensitive to environmental damage, 

PHMSA may regulate petroleum 

gathering lines of any diameter or 

operating pressure. But in other rural 

areas, PHMSA may not regulate 

petroleum gathering lines 6 inches or 

less in nominal diameter operating at a 

low pressure. Congress did not define 

‘‘low pressure’’ or areas ‘‘unusually 

sensitive to environmental damage.’’

PHMSA, however, has defined 

‘‘unusually sensitive areas’’ in §§ 195.2 

and 195.6, and low-stress hazardous 

liquid pipeline in § 195.2, as discussed 

above. PHMSA considers a low pressure 

pipeline synonymous to a low-stress 

pipeline. 

PHMSA has statutory authority under 

49 U.S.C. 60102 to prescribe regulations 

that provide adequate protection against 

risks to life and property posed by 

pipeline transportation. This statute 

requires PHMSA to develop practicable 

standards designed to ensure hazardous 

liquids are safely transported by 

pipeline of any stress level, and to 

protect people and the environment. 

PHMSA’s authority (49 U.S.C. 60102(k)) 

specifically prohibits it from excepting 

from regulation a hazardous liquid 

pipeline facility only because the 

facility operates at low internal stress. 

d. Public Participates in Decision 

Making 

1. Meetings 

In 2003, PHMSA invited the public to 

discuss oil and gas gathering line issues 

at meetings in Austin, Texas (68 FR 

62555; Nov. 5, 2003) and Anchorage, 

Alaska (68 FR 67129; Dec. 1, 2003). The 

meetings gave people an opportunity to 

comment on what might make 

regulating the safety of rural gathering 

lines appropriate, and what the safety 

rules should be. State pipeline safety 

agencies also actively participated in 

these meetings. Transcripts of both 

meetings are in the docket (PHMSA–

2003–15864–2 and 3). 

Following the two public meetings, 

PHMSA published a notice to clarify its 

plans about regulating rural gathering 

lines (69 FR 5305; Feb. 4, 2004). In the 

notice, PHMSA sought comments on a 

suitable approach to identifying 

gathering lines it should regulate. 

PHMSA held a public workshop to 

discuss the need to regulate rural lowstress lines on June 26, 2006, in 

Alexandria, Virginia. This meeting is 

discussed further in section C.3. of this 

document. 

2. Comments Addressing Rural 

Gathering Lines 

Because of the public meetings and 

clarification notice, PHMSA received 

several comments on regulating rural 

gathering lines. Next is a summary of 

the significant comments. 

The Association of Oil Pipelines 

(AOPL), a trade association representing 

operators of hazardous liquid pipelines, 

stated gathering lines usually are in 

areas of little population and operate at 

low pressures. It said most releases are 

due to small corrosion leaks and 

operators repair the leaks quickly. AOPL 

found that 67 percent of these 

hazardous liquid leaks resulted in spills 

of less than five barrels. Thus, AOPL 

said, releases were unlikely to have 

serious public safety or environmental 

consequences. Nevertheless, in 

recognition of Congress’ safety concerns, 

AOPL said it would support limited 

pipeline safety regulation of certain 

higher-risk rural gathering lines as a 

reasonable balance between costs and 

risk. It said comprehensive regulation 

could cause oil producers to shut in 

marginally profitable wells or switch to 

riskier truck transport. 

AOPL put forward a regulatory plan 

for rural crude oil gathering lines. The 

plan covers any line 6 inches or more 

in nominal diameter operating at a hoop 

stress of more than 20 percent of SMYS 

if the line could affect a high 

consequence area. AOPL said operators 

should have discretion in selecting a 

method to identify which gathering 

lines could affect high consequence 

areas. (Section 195.450 defines a ‘‘high 

consequence area’’ as a commercially 

navigable waterway, an area of high or 

concentrated population, or an 

unusually sensitive area. And § 195.6 

defines ‘‘unusually sensitive area’’ as a 

drinking water or ecological resource 

unusually sensitive to environmental 

damage from a hazardous liquid 

pipeline release. Both sections contain 

subordinate definitions that further 

explain the meaning of ‘‘high 

consequence area’’ and ‘‘unusually 

sensitive area.’’) 

AOPL’s plan recommended certain 

safety regulations it thought would be 

suitable for higher-risk rural gathering 

lines. AOPL’s plan includes the 

corrosion control rules in subpart H of 

part 195. In addition, to address 

excavation damage, AOPL’s plan 

includes the public education rules in 

§ 195.440 and the damage prevention 

program rules in § 195.442. Finally, the 

plan includes the accident and safetyrelated condition reporting rules in 

subpart B of part 195. 

AOPL also suggested PHMSA regulate 

nonrural gathering lines in locations 

with rural characteristics in the same 

manner as rural gathering lines. 

Although AOPL did not offer a method 

to identify these lines, the most likely 

method would be a population density 

survey. Part 195 does not require 

operators of nonrural gathering lines to 

conduct population density surveys. 

Thus, PHMSA believes it would be 

burdensome for operators to conduct 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52507 

3Marginal wells account for 16 percent of US oil 

production (Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission, ‘‘Marginal Oil and Natural Gas: 

American Energy for the American Dream, 2005).’’

such surveys just to identify nonrural 

line segments in rural-like settings and 

to discover later changes in population. 

Apart from AOPL’s comment, operators 

of nonrural gathering lines have not 

expressed dissatisfaction with the 

present regulatory scheme of part 195. 

Therefore, PHMSA is not proposing to 

change how part 195 applies to nonrural 

gathering lines. 

After filing its written comment, 

AOPL sent PHMSA data for the years 

2001–2003 on 583 gathering line spills 

collected from five of its member 

companies, representing multiple 

gathering systems. The origin of the data 

was the industry’s Pipeline Performance 

Tracking System, a voluntary data 

collection effort that began in 1999. 

Participants report spills of 5 gallons or 

more to land and all spills to water from 

oil pipelines, whether regulated by part 

195 or not. AOPL’s data shows one third 

of the spills were 5 barrels or more. The 

data also show corrosion (84%) and 

excavation damage (7%) caused 91 

percent of the reported gathering line 

spills; pipe material and weld failure, 2 

percent; and other identified causes, 

less than 1 percent. 

Arctic Connections, an environmental 

consulting firm based in Alaska, urged 

PHMSA to regulate rural gathering lines 

in sensitive Alaskan wetlands and 

coastal environments because oil spills 

threaten subsistence living and have 

lasting effects in the Arctic. The Cook 

Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory 

Council, a nonprofit environmental 

protection organization, and Cook Inlet 

Keeper, a nonprofit watershed 

protection organization, also supported 

regulation of unregulated pipelines that 

threaten Alaska’s Cook Inlet. To show 

the need for regulation, Arctic 

Connections and Cook Inlet Keeper filed 

data from the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

and other sources on releases by various 

unregulated pipelines in Alaska. 

Although the data do not distinguish 

pipelines by type, Cook Inlet Keeper 

said its review showed most of the oil 

spills in Cook Inlet between 1998 and 

2003 came from unregulated gathering 

lines. 

North Slope Borough, the 

northernmost county of Alaska, favored 

regulation of all high-pressure, largediameter North Slope lines that could 

injure residents or affect subsistence 

living, the environment, or traditional 

use areas. 

Delta County Colorado considered 

regulation of rural gathering lines 

essential to assure safe development of 

oil and gas in areas experiencing 

increased pressures of population 

growth. Delta County thought safety 

rules should apply to all gathering lines 

(rural and nonrural), but should be 

suitable for the risks involved. 

Chevron Texaco Upstream and the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

suggested PHMSA identify and analyze 

the risks of rural gathering lines and 

target regulations to specific problems. 

The Independent Petroleum Association 

of America (IPAA) also urged PHMSA to 

focus on actual—not speculative—risks. 

DOE and IPAA were concerned with 

the possible increased costs of gathering 

crude oil could cause producers to shut 

in marginally profitable wells. They 

pointed out that added costs would 

have the potential to reduce the nation’s 

oil supply and hinder development of 

new wells.3 The Interstate Oil & Gas 

Compact Commission defines marginal 

wells, sometimes called ‘‘stripper’’

wells, as wells producing 10 barrels of 

oil per day or less. DOE also said some 

part 195 rules, such as integrity 

management, corrosion control, 

personnel qualification, public 

education, accident reporting, and 

determining whether a pipeline could 

affect a high consequence area, could be 

too costly for smaller operators to carry 

out. (A discussion of energy impacts is 

under the Regulatory Analyses and 

Notices section of this document.) 

The Oklahoma Independent 

Petroleum Association (OIPA) also 

expressed concern about the potential 

impact on marginal wells of imposing 

new safety rules on rural gathering 

lines. In addition, OIPA argued PHMSA 

should not consider regulating rural 

gathering lines until it has data showing 

the types and scale of safety problems. 

3. Comments Addressing Rural LowStress Lines 

On June 26, 2006, PHMSA held both 

a public workshop and meeting of the 

Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline 

Safety Standards Committee to discuss 

how best to regulate low-stress lines to 

better protect unusually sensitive areas 

from risks from spills. During this 

meeting PHMSA received several 

significant comments. 

API and AOPL presented their 

proposal, which is discussed in detail in 

Section II. b. below. The majority of the 

participants agreed that recent accidents 

reinforced the need for PHMSA’s plan 

to regulate low-stress lines near 

unusually sensitive areas (USAs), and 

supported, for the most part, API’s and 

AOPL’s regulatory proposal. API and 

AOPL’s proposal recommended lowstress lines located within 1⁄4 mile of an 

USA, i.e., buffer, be partially regulated 

under part 195. Their analysis of the 

spill data for low-stress pipelines 

showed that the 1⁄4-mile buffer would 

contain the spread in 99.6% of the 

releases. Several of the commenters 

questioned whether the proposed 1⁄4- 

mile buffer was large enough to provide 

adequate protection to these critical 

areas. Some commented on whether a 

larger buffer would encompass too 

many lines. Others questioned the 

effectiveness of leak detection methods 

on these lines. The transcript of this 

meeting is in the docket (PHMSA–2003–

15864). PHMSA invites comments on 

whether the proposed 1⁄4-mile buffer 

zone is appropriate. 

Conoco Phillips noted that most 

unregulated low-stress pipelines are less 

than 1-mile long, and are rarely more 

than 25 miles. Conoco Phillips also 

noted that the primary threat to the 

unregulated low-stress lines is corrosion 

because many lack an effective coating 

and cathodic protection. Further, it 

noted that internal corrosion may be 

exacerbated by water and 

microbiological organisms. 

The Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation also 

believes that government oversight is 

needed for unregulated low-stress lines, 

and shared its proposal on how Alaska 

plans to address lines not currently 

regulated by PHMSA. 

II. Need To Regulate 

a. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid 

Gathering Lines 

Congress recognized some rural 

gathering lines might pose risks 

warranting federal safety regulation and 

authorized DOT to regulate a class of 

rural gathering lines called ‘‘regulated 

gathering lines’’ based on risk-related 

physical characteristics, such as 

diameter, pressure, location, and length 

of line. In its report on H.R. 1489, a bill 

that led to the Pipeline Safety Act of 

1992, the House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce said ‘‘DOT should find 

out whether any gathering lines present 

a risk to people or the environment, and 

if so how large a risk and what measures 

should be taken to mitigate the risk’’

(H.R. Report No. 102–247—Part 1, 102d 

Cong., 1st Session, 23 (1991)). In 

PHMSA’s view, Congress wanted to 

limit ‘‘regulated gathering lines’’ to lines 

posing a significant risk and to limit 

regulation of those lines to suitable riskreduction measures. 

To get more information about rural 

crude oil gathering lines PHMSA asked 

the public whether these pipelines pose 

a risk warranting pipeline safety 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
52508 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

regulation, and, if so, what those rules 

should be. As discussed in section I of 

this preamble, commenters largely 

recognized a need for PHMSA safety 

rules to prevent serious accidents and to 

respond to Congress’ safety concern. 

Most commenters backed rules 

addressing known risks of a significant 

scale. However, a few commenters 

expressed concern that extensive rules 

could cause producers to shut in 

marginal wells or divert transportation 

to riskier modes—mainly trucks. 

A few commenters submitted data 

about oil pipeline accidents, including 

accidents on rural crude oil gathering 

lines. AOPL’s data show corrosion 

damage and excavation damage were 

the leading causes of spills, and 33 

percent of the spills were 5 barrels or 

more. Although the data do not separate 

spills occurring from rural gathering 

lines from those occurring from other 

unregulated liquid lines, the spill causes 

are consistent with PHMSA’s accident 

data on hazardous liquid pipelines 

overall. Also, there is no reason to 

expect rural gathering lines are less 

vulnerable to corrosion, excavation 

damage, and other integrity threats than 

nonrural gathering lines. They may be 

even more vulnerable because they have 

not been subject to federal safety 

regulation to ensure their continued 

integrity. While we have limited data, 

we think it is reasonable to assume 

AOPL’s data are representative of rural 

crude oil gathering lines. A full 

discussion of the available data is in the 

regulatory evaluation for this proposed 

rulemaking, which can be obtained in 

the docket listed above. 

A 1997 report by California’s Office of 

the State Fire Marshal, ‘‘An Assessment 

of Low-Pressure Crude Oil Pipelines 

and Gathering Lines,’’ strengthens this 

assessment. In California, the State Fire 

Marshal regulates intrastate pipelines 

covered by part 195. The report, 

available online at http:// 

osfm.fire.ca.gov/lowpressrpt.html, 

concerns accidents during 1993–1995 

on rural gathering lines and other 

pipelines specifically exempt from part 

195. According to the report, the leading 

causes of the accidents ‘‘ corrosion and 

excavation damage—matched the 

leading causes of accidents on regulated 

pipelines. 

b. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid 

Low-Stress Lines 

The original safety regulations for 

hazardous liquid pipelines did not 

apply to any low-stress pipelines. 

Because of their low operating pressures 

and minimal accident history, lowstress hazardous liquid pipelines were 

thought to pose little risk to public 

safety. PHMSA began rulemaking in this 

area in 1990 following one of the most 

prominent hazardous liquid pipeline 

accidents on record involving the spill 

of approximately 500,000 gallons of 

heating oil from an underwater pipeline 

in Arthur Kill Channel in New York. 

To get more information on low-stress 

lines, in 1990, PHMSA published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) (55 FR 45822; October 31, 

1990). In the ANPRM, PHMSA sought 

information about the costs and benefits 

of regulating low-stress lines. The 

analysis of the data received in response 

to the ANPRM showed regulation of all 

low-stress pipelines could impose costs 

disproportionate to benefits. PHMSA, 

therefore, focused on those low-stress 

pipelines posing a higher risk to people 

and the environment. The risk factors 

identified were the commodity in 

transportation and the location of the 

pipeline. In 1994, PHMSA extended the 

hazardous liquid safety requirements to 

low-stress pipelines that transport 

highly volatile liquids (HVL) in all 

locations, and other low-stress lines in 

populated areas and where the pipeline 

segments cross navigable waterways. In 

this rulemaking, PHMSA deferred 

regulating non-HVL low-stress pipelines 

in rural environmentally sensitive areas 

pending development of a suitable 

definition of ‘‘environmentally sensitive 

area.’’ The agency said it was 

developing a better concept of what 

constitutes an environmentally sensitive 

area for purposes of pipeline regulation 

and this would provide the groundwork 

for the future rulemaking on rural lowstress lines. PHMSA explained that it 

needed to learn the extent to which lowstress pipeline spills affect 

environmentally sensitive areas and the 

definition used in part 194 (Response 

Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines) was too 

broad for part 195. 

In 2000, PHMSA issued a final rule 

defining ‘‘unusually sensitive areas’’

(USAs) (65 FR 246). The USAs address 

higher risk environmentally sensitive 

areas needing extra protection. In this 

rule, PHMSA noted its 1994 decision to 

defer regulating nonvolatile products 

transported in low-stress pipelines 

located in rural sensitive areas until it 

defined these areas. The agency 

reiterated its intention to reconsider the 

issue once there was a sensitive area 

definition. In 2000, PHMSA defined 

protection of USAs for most hazardous 

liquid pipelines through its integrity 

management regulations. As explained 

previously in section I.a, this definition 

was essential to PHMSA’s completing 

its series of risk-based rulemakings to 

provide better protection to people and 

the environment from high pressure 

hazardous liquid pipelines, high 

pressure gas transmission pipelines and 

rural gas gathering pipelines. Protecting 

these areas from rural low-stress lines is 

the last of these initiatives. 

Since 2000, there have been about 30 

hazardous liquid low-stress line 

incidents on lines PHMSA currently 

regulates. While PHMSA does not have 

incident data for non-regulated lines, we 

believe a comparable number of 

incidents have occurred on currently 

unregulated low-stress lines, some of 

which have been significant. For 

instance on August 6, 2006, a crude oil 

spill occurred on a 30-inch, unregulated 

low-stress pipeline in the Eastern 

Operating Area of the Prudhoe Bay 

Field on the North Slope of Alaska. This 

spill resulted in the release of at least 20 

barrels of crude oil onto the tundra, and 

at least another 175 barrels that were 

collected in a portable tank. Previously, 

on March 2, 2006, a leak from a 34-inch, 

unregulated low-stress pipeline was 

discovered in the Western Operating 

Area of the Prudhoe Bay Field. This leak 

resulted in the release of approximately 

5,000 barrels of processed crude oil. 

Although we believe these incidents are 

not representative of the condition of 

unregulated rural low-stress lines in the 

lower 48 states, these incidents 

reinforced the necessity for PHMSA to 

complete this rulemaking to better 

protect USAs from any spill that could 

occur from an unregulated rural lowstress pipeline. 

As PHMSA was developing its 

proposal on how best to address rural 

low-stress lines, after the March 

incident, API and AOPL submitted a 

regulatory proposal on how PHMSA 

should address certain currently exempt 

low-stress pipelines. The proposal 

requests PHMSA: 

• Add a new subpart in part 195 to 

address assessment and control of low 

pressure pipelines; 

• Define regulated low-stress lines as 

pipelines with a diameter greater than 

85⁄8 inches, operating at 20 percent or 

less of SMYS, located off the operator’s 

property, and located within 1⁄4-mile of 

an unusually sensitive area; and 

• Modify 49 CFR 195.1(b)(iii) to add 

petroleum storage facilities to the list of 

facilities exempt from regulation, unless 

a facility crosses a sole source aquifer in 

an unusually sensitive area. 

Further, API and AOPL propose that 

PHMSA add programmatic 

requirements to require operators of a 

regulated rural low-stress line to comply 

with the reporting requirements in 

subpart B, the corrosion control 

requirements in subpart H, the line 

marker requirements in § 195.410, and 

four additional requirements: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52509 

1. Assessment: The operator should 

inspect the pipeline using in-line 

inspection tools or commensurate 

technology to assess the pipeline 

segment every five years unless the 

operator performs an engineering 

analysis to justify a longer timeframe. 

2. Leak Detection: The operator 

should have a means to detect leaks on 

the covered pipelines. 

3. Damage Prevention: The operator 

should put in place basic damage 

prevention practices, such as registering 

facilities with one-call organizations 

and excavation monitoring. 

4. Training for Abnormal Operating 

Conditions: The operator should be 

trained to recognize and respond to 

abnormal operating conditions. 

Lastly, API and AOPL recommend, 

with the exception of line identification, 

operators have up to 5 years after the 

effective date of a rule to begin 

compliance. 

As a follow-up to the June 26th public 

meeting, the Cook Inlet Regional 

Citizens Advisory Council submitted 

comments to the docket. Cook Inlet 

recommends eliminating the low-stress 

regulatory exemption in 49 CFR 

195.1(b)(3)(i). Instead, Cook Inlet 

recommends PHSMA apply its baseline 

pipeline regulations to all low-stress 

transmission pipelines, and its integrity 

management program rules to those 

low-stress transmission pipelines that 

may affect High Consequence Areas. 

API and AOPL also submitted 

supplemental information reflecting 

their analysis of spill data. They found 

that of the 312 large releases of 

hazardous liquids (greater than five 

barrels) between 1999 and 2004, only 67 

(21%) were from low-stress 

transmission pipelines. Further, releases 

from low-stress lines accounted for only 

7% of the total volume of hazardous 

liquid releases from all pipeline 

incidents. They determined that 

corrosion (64%) and third party damage 

(21%) together caused 85% of these 

releases from low-stress pipelines. 

c. Conclusion for Need To Regulate 

Based on our consideration of 

Congress’ safety concern, the public 

comments, and the accident data, we 

believe the potential for future harm to 

the public’s health and environment 

from rural onshore gathering and rural 

low-stress lines is clear. The record 

shows rural gathering lines experience 

the same leading causes of accidents as 

hazardous liquid pipelines we now 

regulate, and releases from unregulated 

low-stress lines can affect unusually 

sensitive areas. Therefore, we believe it 

no longer appropriate to continue to 

exempt rural onshore gathering lines 

and rural low-stress lines from nearly all 

safety requirements in part 195. 

III. Regulatory Options 

In considering what safety rules 

should apply to ‘‘regulated rural 

gathering lines’’ and ‘‘regulated rural 

low-stress lines,’’ the first alternative we 

considered was to collect more 

information about the potential hazards 

of these lines before proposing any 

specific safety rules. We rejected this 

alternative because we believe we have 

sufficient information; collecting more 

information would be unlikely to 

change our current understanding of the 

risks these lines pose. 

The second alternative we considered 

was to apply all part 195 rules to 

regulated rural gathering lines and, as 

suggested by Cook Inlet, for regulated 

rural low-stress lines. We rejected this 

alternative because it could impose 

significant costs on the industry without 

offsetting safety benefits. Also, the costs 

could have a significant effect on U.S. 

oil supplies by causing production to 

stop at many marginal oil wells. 

Further, while we understand Cook 

Inlet’s desire to extend oversight to all 

low-stress lines, we believe we should 

focus on those posing the most 

significant threats to USAs, and on the 

most critical issues associated with 

those lines. Therefore, the proposal only 

includes safety requirements that 

address the most prominent threats to 

low-stress lines. This determination is 

based on our analysis of the most 

critical safety concerns, including the 

data submitted by API and AOPL 

demonstrating that corrosion and third 

party damage cause the greatest threat to 

the integrity of these lines. 

The third alternative was to adopt the 

approaches API and/or AOPL suggested. 

For gathering lines, AOPL’s suggested 

approach includes limited operation 

and maintenance rules and reporting 

rules for accidents and safety-related 

conditions. The operation and 

maintenance rules would be the public 

education rules in § 195.440, the 

excavation damage prevention rules in 

§ 195.442, and the corrosion control 

rules in subpart H of part 195. The 

reporting rules would be provisions of 

subpart B of part 195 related to 

accidents and safety-related conditions. 

The benefit of this alternative is it 

would focus on the leading threats to 

rural gathering lines—corrosion and 

excavation damage. Also the 

information collected would enable 

PHMSA to recognize safety problems 

and evaluate the effectiveness of 

adopting only limited safety rules. 

By focusing mainly on the threats of 

excavation damage and corrosion, the 

AOPL approach does not address 

significant safety issues related to 

pipeline design, construction, and 

testing, such as choice of materials, 

qualification of welding procedures, and 

suitable test pressure. AOPL’s approach 

does not include installation and 

maintenance of line markers under 

§ 195.410 or operator qualification 

program requirements under part 195, 

subpart G. The use of line markers to 

warn excavators of the presence of 

hazardous liquid pipelines has long 

been a safety practice in the hazardous 

liquid pipeline industry. Regarding 

operator qualifications, Congress 

mandated PHMSA establish regulations 

for operator qualification programs on 

pipelines. Congress also directed 

pipeline operators to develop and adopt 

a qualification program should DOT fail 

to prescribe standards and criteria. 

The fourth alternative to address rural 

onshore low-stress lines was also the 

approach suggested by API and AOPL. 

This approach would subject rural 

onshore hazardous liquid low-stress 

lines that have a diameter greater than 

85⁄8 inches, operate at 20 percent SMYS, 

and are located within a 1⁄4-mile of an 

unusually sensitive area to certain 

regulatory requirements. The regulatory 

approach includes the reporting 

requirements of part 195, subpart B, the 

corrosion control rules in part 195, 

subpart H, the damage prevention rules 

in § 195.442, and installation of line 

markers in § 195.410. The API and 

AOPL approach also includes leak 

detection, assessment, and limited 

operator qualification requirements. We 

believe the information collected about 

threats on non-regulated gathering lines 

also applies to threats associated with 

regulated hazardous liquid lines. Based 

on this information, we believe 

corrosion and excavation damage are 

the leading causes of accidents on lowstress lines. Thus, the benefit of this 

approach is it focuses on these leading 

threats to rural onshore low-stress lines. 

A disadvantage of the API and AOPL 

approach for rural gathering lines is it 

does not address other significant safety 

issues related to pipeline design, 

construction, and testing, and does not 

include the public awareness 

requirements under § 195.440. In its 

petition, API and AOPL did not explain 

why these safety requirements were 

omitted. Regarding public awareness, in 

49 U.S.C. 60112(c), Congress mandated 

that pipeline facility operators establish 

and carry out continuing public 

awareness programs to notify the public 

about the location of its facilities, onecall programs and accident procedures. 

Further, the API and AOPL proposal 

does not fully address the operator 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
52510 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

4Although the statute directs us to define a 

regulated gathering line, for purposes of this 

rulemaking, we are proposing to define regulated 

rural line. Non rural onshore gathering is already 

regulated under part 195 and we are not proposing 

to change regulation of these currently regulated 

lines. This rulemaking focuses on certain rural 

onshore gathering not presently regulated. 

qualification requirements. Congress 

mandated PHMSA establish regulations 

for operator qualification programs on 

pipelines. Congress also directed 

pipeline operators to develop and adopt 

a qualification program should DOT fail 

to prescribe standards and criteria. 

Although Congress provided some 

flexibility in the statute, we believe that 

the API and AOPL approach is too 

limited because it only addresses one of 

the multiple facets of the operator 

qualification requirements. 

As a fifth alternative, we considered 

developing new safety rules for 

‘‘regulated rural gathering lines’’ and 

‘‘regulated rural low-stress lines.’’ We 

rejected this alternative because we 

have no reason to conclude part 195 

safety rules now in effect for non-rural 

gathering and low-stress lines would be 

less effective if applied to rural lines. 

Our experience shows part 195 rules are 

effective and should work well for 

‘‘regulated rural gathering lines’’ and 

‘‘regulated rural low-stress lines’’

because the integrity threats involved 

are similar for all the lines. 

Finally, we considered modified 

versions of the approaches API and 

AOPL suggested for rural gathering and 

low-stress lines. This approach would 

provide integrity protection by focusing 

on the primary threats to these lines—

corrosion and third-party damage. For 

rural gathering, this alternative would 

add, line marker requirements under 

§ 195.410 and the qualification 

requirements in subpart G for the 

operator’s personnel. Markers are a 

traditional way of alerting excavators to 

dig carefully in the presence of 

hazardous liquid pipelines. Under 49 

U.S.C. 60131, DOT must require 

pipeline operators to develop and adopt 

a qualification program that complies 

with the standards DOT develops for 

such programs. 

In addition, the modified version 

would require operators to establish a 

maximum operating pressure for each 

steel line according to § 195.406, and to 

design, construct, and test lines 

according to applicable part 195 rules. 

A maximum operating pressure would 

guard against the danger of accidental 

overpressure. Part 195 design, 

construction, and testing rules would 

ensure a minimum standard of integrity 

for all new, replaced, and relocated 

‘‘regulated gathering lines.’’ We required 

similar rules on markers, operating 

pressure, design, construction, and 

testing for rural gas gathering lines in a 

final rule published March 15, 2006 (71 

FR 13289). These requirements should 

not be too burdensome, because similar 

safety requirements are in the ASME 

B31.4 Code, ‘‘Pipeline Transportation 

Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and 

Other Liquids,’’ a consensus standard 

followed widely throughout the 

hazardous liquid pipeline industry. 

Our modified approach to the API and 

AOPL suggestion for rural onshore lowstress lines would include public 

awareness requirements in § 195.440 

and a modified version of the operator 

qualification requirements. These 

operators are also required under 49 

U.S.C. 60102(a) to have public 

awareness program. Under 49 U.S.C. 

60131(e)(5) and (f), Congress allowed 

DOT and State pipeline safety agencies 

to waive or modify any operator 

qualification requirement if not 

inconsistent with the pipeline safety 

laws. PHMSA believes an approach 

similar to the modified approach used 

for gas gathering would be appropriate 

for low-stress lines. This modification 

would allow operators to describe the 

processes they have in place to ensure 

personnel performing operations and 

maintenance activities are qualified. 

Additionally, the modified version 

would require operators to establish a 

maximum operating pressure for each 

steel line according to § 195.406, and to 

design, construct, and test lines 

according to applicable part 195 rules. 

A maximum operating pressure would 

guard against the danger of accidental 

overpressure. Part 195 design, 

construction, and testing rules would 

ensure a minimum standard of integrity 

for all new, replaced, and relocated 

‘‘regulated rural low-stress lines.’’

Lastly, the modified version would 

require an operator to periodically 

assess the integrity of the lines to 

identify and address any conditions 

affecting the integrity of the lines, no 

matter the cause, and to establish and 

maintain a leak detection program based 

on API’s recommended practice 1130 

(API 1130) ‘‘Computational Pipeline 

Monitoring,’’ which is currently being 

used by industry and is incorporated by 

reference into our existing regulations. 

Because API 1130 only addresses 

pipelines transporting a stable single 

phase product, operators transporting 

other products will need to develop 

another appropriate leak detection 

method. 

Further, our modified version 

includes additional corrosion control 

requirements for onshore rural gathering 

lines and low-stress lines. Our proposal 

includes a requirement to continuously 

monitor these lines and based on 

identified changes to clean and 

accelerate the corrosion control program 

when necessary. 

A discussion of the safety rules we are 

proposing is in section IV of this 

preamble. 

IV. Proposed Regulations for Regulated 

Rural Gathering Lines 

a. Proposed Definition of ‘‘Regulated 

Rural Gathering Line’’

We are defining those rural gathering 

lines presenting a higher risk to public 

health and the environment as regulated 

rural gathering lines.4 PHMSA believes 

Congress did not think all rural 

gathering lines subject people or the 

environment to a high enough risk to 

qualify as a regulated rural gathering 

line. This reasoning is based on the 

various risk factors the statute requires 

us to consider, the complete exemption 

in most rural areas of low-pressure lines 

6 inches or less in nominal diameter. 

Thus, we have determined higher risk 

rural areas are those areas we defined in 

§ 195.6 as unusually sensitive areas. 

These areas include drinking water and 

ecological resource areas. 

PHMSA considered whether the 

present definition of gathering line in 

§ 195.2 is acceptable. This definition 

represents the typical function of a 

crude oil gathering line—to move crude 

oil away from a production facility. It 

also represents the typically small size 

of crude oil gathering lines—85⁄8 inches 

or less in nominal outside diameter. 

Since its adoption, the definition has 

served to identify which petroleum 

pipelines in rural areas are exempt from 

part 195 because they are gathering 

lines. Also, in our experience, operators 

and government inspectors have had 

little difficulty using the definition for 

that purpose. We decided, therefore, the 

§ 195.2 definition of gathering line is 

acceptable for helping to define a 

regulated rural gathering line. 

Furthermore, because we are not 

changing the coverage of the non-rural 

gathering lines we now regulate, we see 

no reason to change the long-standing 

definition of a gathering line. 

Congress identified ‘‘throughput’’ and 

‘‘composition of the transported 

hazardous liquid’’ as two other possible 

risk factors to consider in determining 

which rural gathering lines should be 

regulated. We think it unnecessary to 

include these factors. Throughput, or 

volume of oil moved in a unit of time, 

is largely dependent on pipe diameter 

and operating pressure. And the 

composition of hazardous liquids 

transported by gathering lines is chiefly 

crude oil. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52511 

AOPL was the only commenter to 

offer a definition of ‘‘regulated gathering 

line.’’ Under this definition, a 

‘‘regulated gathering line’’ would be a 

line 6 inches or more in nominal 

diameter operating above 20 percent of 

SMYS that could affect a highconsequence area. 

An advantage of AOPL’s definition is 

its use of the statutory risk factors of 

diameter, operating pressure (expressed 

as a percentage of SMYS), and location 

(could affect a high consequence area) to 

identify higher-risk lines. And we think 

the definition uses these factors in a 

reasonable way. 

Our proposed definition of a regulated 

rural gathering line is based in part on 

AOPL’s suggested definition. AOPL’s 

definition is based on gathering lines in 

high consequence areas. High 

consequence areas include populated 

areas. We already regulate onshore 

gathering lines in populated areas and 

are not proposing to change any of the 

pipeline safety requirements applicable 

to these lines. Therefore, we are basing 

our definition on those rural gathering 

lines meeting certain criteria and 

located within a defined zone of an 

unusually sensitive area as defined in 

§ 195.6. Unusually sensitive areas 

include drinking water and ecological 

resource areas. These areas are 

unusually sensitive to environmental 

damage from a hazardous liquid pipe 

release because a release into these areas 

could substantially impact the Nation’s 

supply of drinking water, endanger 

public health, and create long-term or 

irrevocable damage to the habitat of 

threatened and endangered species. 

Our proposed definition, like AOPL’s 

definition, does not use line length as a 

defining characteristic of these higherrisk rural lines. Line length, a statutory 

risk factor, is relevant to potential spill 

volume, because the shorter the line, the 

less oil there is to drain out after 

shutdown. Part 194 recognizes this risk 

factor by not requiring spill response 

plans for certain small pipelines 10 

miles or less in length. However, 

because short lines can cause 

substantial environmental harm in 

vulnerable locations, part 194 does not 

allow operators to use the 10-mile 

exception for lines proximate to 

navigable waters, public drinking water 

intakes, or environmentally sensitive 

areas. 

Instead of using AOPL’s criteria to 

define a regulated rural gathering line as 

one that could affect an unusually 

sensitive area, we have decided to use 

a buffer. We saw a potential difficulty in 

operators determining which lines 

could affect an unusually sensitive area. 

Part 195 uses the phrase ‘‘could affect a 

high consequence area’’ to identify 

pipelines subject to integrity 

management rules (§ 195.452). Section I. 

B. of Appendix C to part 195 lists 

various risk factors, such as topography 

and shutdown ability, an operator can 

use in deciding if a pipeline ‘‘could 

affect a high consequence area.’’

PHMSA believes this would be too 

burdensome for most operators. To 

reduce the burden of making this 

decision for possibly thousands of rural 

line segments, we are proposing a 

buffer—a distance beyond the defined 

area where a rural gathering line 

presumably could not affect that area. 

PHMSA considered the buffers used 

in §§ 194.103(c)(4) and (5) of the Oil 

Spill response plan requirements. Those 

sections require a buffer of five miles 

from a public drinking water intake and 

one mile from an environmentally 

sensitive area. However, after reviewing 

the incident data, we concluded those 

buffer sizes were not warranted. During 

the June 26th public meeting, AOPL 

clarified it recommended a buffer of 1⁄4- 

mile for rural gathering lines because its 

data revealed the largest on land spill 

from a pipeline traveled no more than 

2 acres. The operating pressure is also 

a factor when evaluating the potential 

spill volume from a pipeline. Thus, 

gathering lines operating at lower 

pressures do not have the potential to 

release as much product as those 

operating at higher pressures. Thus, we 

have determined that gathering lines 

that operate above 20% SMYS and that 

are between 65⁄8 inches and 85⁄8 inches 

in diameter and are located in or within 

1⁄4-mile of an USA have the potential to 

substantially impact public health and 

the environment. We invite comments 

and supporting technical 

documentation on whether a larger 

buffer is needed to provide better 

protection for these critical 

environmental areas. PHMSA would 

also like data on the miles of gathering 

lines likely to be affected by any 

increase in the size of the buffer. 

Thus, we are proposing to add a new 

section 195.11(a) that would define a 

‘‘regulated rural gathering line’’ as a 

rural onshore gathering line with the 

following characteristics: 

• A nominal diameter between 65⁄8

inches and 85⁄8 inches; 

• Operates at a maximum operating 

pressure established under § 195.406 

that corresponds to a stress level greater 

than 20 percent of SMYS or, if the stress 

level is unknown or the pipeline is not 

constructed with steel pipe, at a 

pressure of more than 125 psig; and 

• Is located in or within 1⁄4-mile of an 

unusually sensitive area as defined in 

§ 195.6. 

A pressure of 125 psig conservatively 

approximates 20 percent of SMYS for 

steel pipe of unknown stress level, 

based on minimum weight pipe 8 

inches in nominal diameter with 24000 

psi yield strength. 

We invite comments and supporting 

technical documentation on whether 

values other than 125 psig and 1⁄4-mile 

would be more suitable for the 

respective purposes. We are particularly 

interested in comment on whether the 

proposed 1⁄4-mile buffer is adequate to 

protect those drinking water and 

ecological resources particularly 

vulnerable to damage from a hazardous 

liquid pipeline release, or whether a 

larger buffer is needed. If commenters 

believe a larger buffer is needed, data on 

the pipeline mileage that would be 

affected would be helpful. 

b. Proposed Rewrite of § 195.1 

Section 195.1 specifies the hazardous 

liquid pipeline facilities subject to the 

requirements of part 195 and those 

exempt from coverage. We propose to 

rewrite this section to clarify which 

lines are subject to part 195. This 

section clarifies that onshore non-rural 

gathering lines are subject to all of part 

195’s requirements. A regulated rural 

gathering line, as defined in this 

proposal, would be subject to the 

limited safety requirements provided in 

a new § 195.11, discussed below. 

The rewrite of § 195.1 clarifies the 

present rulemaking does not affect 

onshore gathering lines in inlets of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Onshore gathering in 

these inlets would continue to be 

subject only to the inspection and burial 

rules in § 195.413. At no point during 

our public meetings on regulating 

onshore gathering lines in rural areas 

did anyone comment on the need to 

expand these rules. 

We also have clarified the language in 

several of the exceptions from part 195’s 

coverage. We have not changed the 

intent or scope of any of these. We have 

simply cleaned up some of the language 

to make the exceptions easier to read. 

c. Proposed Safety Requirements for 

‘‘Regulated Rural Gathering Lines’’

A new § 195.11(b) would be added to 

the part 195 regulations to specify the 

safety requirements for these lines. We 

have developed these proposed 

requirements to manage the integrity of 

rural gathering lines by providing 

complete protections to address the 

known significant threats and to 

continue to collect more information 

about these lines through the reporting 

requirements. Based on our review of 

the gathering lines in populated areas 

and our investigation of the nonVerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Sep 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM 06SEP1

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
52512 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

regulated lines in rural areas, we have 

found that the highest risks to these 

lines are corrosion and third party 

damage. This proposal focuses on those 

threats. Through continuous monitoring 

of the lines, required as part of the 

corrosion program, the operators will 

gather more information about the risk 

the lines pose. We seek comments on 

whether this proposal should 

specifically address other threats. We 

also seek comment on whether PHMSA 

should require all gathering line 

operators to submit an annual report 

and accident reports as required for 

regulated operators by §§ 195.49 and 

195.59. 

Operators would first have to identify 

all segments of regulated rural gathering 

pipeline. Operators would have to 

design, install, construct, initially 

inspect, and initially test new, replaced, 

relocated, or otherwise changed steel 

lines according to certain existing part 

195 rules. However, for pipelines 

converted to hazardous liquid service, 

operators would have the option of 

following the conversion rules in 

§ 195.5. 

Operators of newly constructed nonsteel lines would have to notify PHMSA 

at least 90 days before the start of 

transportation. The notice would give 

PHMSA an opportunity to review the 

pipeline and order any changes 

necessary for safety. 

Under the proposal, operators would 

have to comply with the reporting 

requirements in subpart B of part 195. 

The other proposed safety requirements 

for these regulated rural lines include: 

• Establishing a maximum operating 

pressure under § 195.406; 

• Installing and maintaining line 

markers under § 195.410; 

• Establishing and applying a public 

education program according to 

§ 195.440; 

• Establishing and applying a damage 

prevention program according to 

§ 195.442; 

• For steel lines, controlling and 

remediating corrosion according to 

subpart H of part 195; to include 

cleaning, continuous monitoring, and 

remediating any problems identified; 

and 

• Establishing and applying an 

operator qualification program that 

describes the processes the operator has 

in place to ensure the personnel 

performing operations and maintenance 

activities are qualified. 

To address one of the major threats to 

these lines, we are proposing operators 

include these lines in their corrosion 

control program. A corrosion control 

program under part 195’s subpart H 

includes provisions on how an operator 

is to remediate corroded pipe. We are 

also proposing additional corrosion 

control requirements in the form of 

continuous monitoring and cleaning. 

We seek public comment on whether 

the continuous monitoring provision 

primarily associated with corrosion 

control should be as proposed, or 

extended to other provisions of this 

proposed rule. 

Although not listed as a specific 

safety requirement in the rule, operators 

are required to continue to comply with 

the drug and alcohol testing rules in 49 

CFR part 199. Part 199 requires 

operators of pipelines subject to part 

195 to test personnel for use of 

prohibited drugs and misuse of alcohol. 

Persons subject to testing are those who 

perform a regulated operation, 

maintenance, or emergency-response 

function on a regulated pipeline. 

Under § 195.406, the maximum 

operating pressure of a pipeline is the 

lowest pressure applicable to the 

pipeline among a list of pressures. 

However, most of the pressures listed 

apply only to pipelines subject to the 

design and pressure testing rules of part 

195. The only pressure applicable to 

pipelines not subject to those rules is in 

§ 195.406(a)(2)—the design pressure of 

any other component of the pipeline. 

Because operators normally do not 

operate a hazardous liquid pipeline 

above its design pressure, compliance 

with § 195.406(a)(2) should not be 

difficult on ‘‘regulated rural gathering 

lines’’ to which part 195 design and 

pressure testing rules would not apply. 

Still, we do not want operators to 

reduce operating pressure unnecessarily 

on any existing line with a history of 

satisfactory operation. So we invite 

comments on the need to amend 

§ 195.406 to allow such continued 

operation and, if so, what that 

amendment should be. 

The proposal provides, except for the 

requirements applicable to newlyconstructed pipelines and corrosion 

control, the safety requirements apply to 

all materials of construction. 

The proposed time frames for 

compliance with each proposed safety 

requirement are shown in section V.d. 

of this document. The proposed 

compliance deadlines vary according to 

the safety requirements. To gain a better 

understanding of how different time 

frames will affect the costs and 

feasibility of an operator’s compliance, 

we have proposed a range of compliance 

times. This approach will allow 

operators longer time frames for 

complex activities that are more costly 

to implement, and to readily implement 

less complex safety requirements. For 

example, under the proposal, operators 

would have six months, 12 months or 

some period in between those time 

frames after the effective date of the 

final rule to identify regulated rural 

gathering pipeline segments and to 

comply with the reporting requirements. 

The corrosion control program, 

including the additional requirements 

for continuous monitoring, remediation 

and cleaning, would have to be in place 

within two to three years from the final 

rule’s effective date. We believe a longer 

time frame for the corrosion control 

program may be necessary for pipelines 

that require major construction to 

implement new monitoring, 

remediation, or cleaning facilities. 

Additionally, recoating of the line 

involves major construction and a 

longer planning and construction cycle 

may be necessary. 

A final rule will require a period 

somewhere in the proposed ranges. Our 

preference is for shorter compliance 

periods. But we have proposed a lower 

and upper range of compliance periods 

so that in a final rule we can set 

compliance times that can be done 

quickly enough to address any problems 

on these lines but are not cost 

burdensome, impractical or have an 

adverse effect on energy supply. We 

seek comments and supporting 

documentation to address the effects of 

these compliance periods on an 

operator’s operations. These comments 

should address cost, operational 

difficulties in complying, technology 

concerns, and other issues, such as time 

needed to secure necessary permits. 

d. New Unusually Sensitive Areas 

Proposed § 195.11(c) concerns 

onshore rural gathering lines that 

become ‘‘regulated rural gathering 

lines’’ because of a new unusually 

sensitive area. Operators should at least 

annually review the National Pipeline 

Mapping System (NPMS) to determine if 

the addition of a new unusually 

sensitive area has caused any of their 

unregulated rural gathering lines to 

become ‘‘regulated rural gathering 

lines.’’ We are proposing a range 

between six months to one year for 

compliance with applicable safety 

requirements when a previously 

unregulated line becomes regulated. We 

seek comments and supporting 

documentation that address the effect of 

these time frames on the costs and 

feasibility of compliance. We want to 

completely understand the impacts of 

an operator’s ability to comply with a 

shorter or longer time frame. 

e. Records 

Proposed § 195.11(d) provides record 

retention requirements. Certain records, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52513 

such as the segment identification 

records, would have to be retained for 

the life of the pipe. Other records would 

have to be kept according to the record 

keeping requirements of the specific 

section or subpart referenced. 

V. Proposed Rules for ‘‘Regulated Rural 

Low-Stress Lines’’

a. Proposed Definition of ‘‘Regulated 

Rural Low-Stress Lines’’

We are proposing to define regulated 

rural low-stress lines as those rural lowstress lines presenting a higher risk to 

the public’s health and the 

environment. Congress directed PHMSA 

to focus pipeline regulation on 

protecting people and the environment 

against risks presented by pipeline 

transportation, but not to exempt 

pipeline facilities solely because they 

operate at low-stress levels. Thus, as 

with rural gathering lines, we 

determined the higher risk rural areas 

that should be protected from a release 

from a low-stress pipeline are those 

areas we defined in § 195.6 as unusually 

sensitive environmental areas. These 

areas include drinking water and 

ecological resource areas. 

After evaluating the accident history 

and the API and AOPL proposed 

definition, we believe PHMSA’s 

definition should focus on rural lowstress lines with a diameter of 85⁄8

inches or more and operating at 20 

percent or less of SMYS that could 

cause harm to an USA. In its proposed 

definition, API and AOPL 

recommended a buffer zone of 1⁄4-mile 

from an USA and provided data 

showing the impact from a spill has not 

gone beyond 1⁄4-mile. Their data showed 

hazard liquid releases, regardless of 

whether the spill has a radius, diameter, 

or ellipse formation, will not spread 

more than 1⁄4-mile. Based on this data, 

PHMSA proposes a 1⁄4-mile buffer as the 

zone of protection for an USA. Thus, if 

a rural low-stress line meets the above 

criteria and is within 1⁄4-mile of an USA, 

it would be regulated. 

PHMSA considered the buffer zones 

used in § 194.103(c)(4) and (5) of the Oil 

Spill response plan requirements, but 

after reviewing the incident data found 

those buffer sizes were not warranted. 

We believe regulating low-stress 

pipeline segments located within 1⁄4- 

mile of an unusually sensitive area 

provides a reasonable zone of protection 

for these areas from the release of large 

quantities of hazardous liquids. We 

invite comments and supporting 

technical documentation on whether a 

larger buffer is needed to provide better 

protection for these critical 

environmental areas. PHMSA would 

also like data on the miles of low-stress 

lines likely to be affected by increasing 

the buffer size. 

We are proposing to add a new 

section § 195.12(a) to define a 

‘‘regulated low-stress line’’ as an 

onshore line in a rural area meeting the 

following criteria: 

• A nominal diameter of 85⁄8 inches 

or more; 

• Located within 1⁄4-mile of an 

unusually sensitive area as defined in 

§ 195.6; and 

• Operates at a maximum pressure 

established under § 195.406 that 

corresponds to a stress level equal to or 

less than 20 percent of SMYS, or if the 

stress level is unknown or the pipeline 

is not constructed with steel pipe, a 

pressure equal to or less an 125 psig. 

b. Proposed Rewrite of 195.1 

We propose to rewrite this section to 

clarify which lines are subject to part 

195. This section clarifies which lowstress pipelines are subject to part 195 

and which are exempt. A regulated rural 

low-stress line would be subject to the 

limited safety requirements provided in 

a new § 195.12, discussed below. 

We also have clarified the language in 

several of the exceptions from part 195’s 

coverage. We have not changed the 

intent or scope of any of these. We have 

simply cleaned up some of the language 

to make the exceptions easier to read. 

PHMSA is not adopting AOPL’s 

suggestion to exempt petroleum storage 

facilities in § 195.1 because the proposal 

is unclear as to which storage facilities 

should be exempt. For example, 

regulated tanks are tanks that are used 

to relieve surges in a pipeline system or 

used to receive and store hazardous 

liquid transported by a pipeline for 

reinjection and continued transportation 

by pipeline. API/AOPL, in their 

proposal and presentation at the public 

meeting, did not explain why these 

facilities should be exempted. 

c. Proposed Safety Requirements for 

‘‘Regulated Rural Low-Stress Pipelines’’

A new § 195.12(b) would be added to 

part 195 regulations to specify the safety 

requirements for regulated rural lowstress lines. As we did with rural 

gathering lines, we have developed 

these safety protections to address the 

known threats to the integrity of these 

lines. Based on our review of regulated 

low-stress lines and our investigation of 

non-regulated lines in rural areas, we 

have found that the highest risks to 

these lines are corrosion and third party 

damage. Although this proposal focuses 

on those threats, operators will gather 

additional information through the 

reporting requirements, the continuous 

monitoring required as part of the 

corrosion program, and the integrity 

assessment that includes identification 

and remediation of any condition 

presenting a threat to the integrity of 

these lines, no matter the cause. We 

seek comments on whether this 

proposal should specifically address 

other threats. We seek comment on 

whether PHMSA should require all 

operators of low-stress lines to submit 

an annual report as required by 

§ 195.49. 

Operators would have to identify all 

segments of regulated rural low-stress 

lines. They would also have to design, 

install, construct, initially inspect and 

test new, replaced, relocated, or 

otherwise changed steel lines according 

to certain existing part 195 

requirements. However, for pipelines 

converted to hazardous liquid service, 

operators would have the option of 

following the conversion rules in 

§ 195.5. 

Under the proposal, operators would 

have to comply with the reporting 

requirements in subpart B of part 195. 

The other proposed safety requirements 

for these regulated rural lines include: 

• Establishing a maximum operating 

pressure under § 195.406; 

• Installing and maintaining line 

markers under § 195.410; 

• Establishing and applying a public 

education program according to 

§ 195.440; 

• Establishing and applying a damage 

prevention program according to 

§ 195.442; 

• For steel lines, controlling and 

remediating corrosion according to part 

195, subpart H, and cleaning and 

continuous monitoring to identify and 

remediate problems; 

• Establishing and applying a 

modified operator qualification program 

to allow an operator to describe the 

processes the operator has in place to 

ensure personnel performing operations 

and maintenance activities are qualified 

under part 195, subpart G; 

• Establishing and applying a 

program to assess at continuing 

intervals the integrity of the low-stress 

lines. The purpose of this assessment is 

to determine and remediate any 

condition presenting a threat to the 

integrity of these regulated segments. 

These conditions are not limited to 

those caused by corrosion or third-party 

damage. The proposal allows an 

operator to use in-line inspection tests 

and pressure testing as assessment 

methods. An operator could also use 

alternative technology, such as direct 

assessment, if the operator demonstrates 

the technology can provide an 

equivalent understanding of the line 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
52514 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

5The compliance time frame applies only to 

onshore rural low-stress lines. 

pipe. If an operator uses direct 

assessment, PHMSA would expect the 

methodology to follow that required for 

using direct assessment in the gas 

integrity management regulations; and 

• Establishing and applying a leak 

detection program based on API 1130, 

or other appropriate method suitable for 

the commodity being transported. 

To address one of the major threats to 

these lines, we are proposing operators 

include these lines in their corrosion 

control program. A corrosion control 

program under part 195’s subpart H 

includes provisions on how an operator 

is to remediate corroded pipe. We are 

also proposing additional corrosion 

control requirements in the form of 

continuous monitoring, cleaning and 

remediating problems identified from 

the continuous corrosion monitoring. 

We seek public comment on whether 

the continuous monitoring provision 

associated primarily with corrosion 

control should be as proposed or 

extended to other provisions of this 

proposed rule. 

Although not listed as a specific 

safety requirement in the proposed rule, 

operators are required to continue to 

comply with the drug and alcohol 

testing rules in 49 CFR part 199, which 

requires operators to test personnel for 

use of prohibited drugs and misuse of 

alcohol. Individuals subject to testing 

are those who perform a regulated 

operation, maintenance, or emergencyresponse function on a regulated 

pipeline. 

The proposed compliance deadlines 

vary according to the safety 

requirements, and are listed below. To 

gain a better understanding of how 

different time frames will affect the 

costs and feasibility of an operator’s 

compliance, we have proposed a range 

of compliance times. API and AOPL 

recommended that compliance begin for 

all requirements within 5 years, but we 

believe a phased approach is more 

appropriate. This approach will allow 

operators longer time frames for 

complex activities that are more costly 

and time consuming to implement, and 

to readily implement less complex 

requirements. For example, under the 

proposal, operators would have six 

months, 12 months or some period in 

between those ranges after the effective 

date of the final rule to identify 

regulated rural low-stress pipeline 

segments and to comply with the 

reporting requirements. The proposal 

would have an operator establish an 

integrity assessment program within one 

year to two years from the final rule’s 

effective date, and allow 5 years to 7 

years to complete the integrity 

assessment of all regulated rural lowstress segments, with half of those 

segments having to be completed within 

three to four years from the final rule’s 

effective date. The proposed time frame 

for the integrity assessment takes into 

account the time necessary to address 

physical changes to the pipeline for the 

use of internal inspection devices, and 

any extensive planning and 

construction. The corrosion control 

program, including the additional 

requirements for continuous monitoring 

and cleaning, would have to be in place 

within two to three years from the final 

rule’s effective date. 

A final rule will require a completion 

period somewhere in the proposed 

ranges. Our preference is for shorter 

compliance periods. Shorter periods 

should be feasible because operators 

currently comply with many of these 

requirements and would merely be 

adding low-stress lines to their current 

operations. But we have proposed a 

lower and upper range of compliance 

periods so that in a final rule we can set 

compliance times that can be completed 

quickly enough to address any problems 

on these lines but are not cost 

burdensome, impractical or have an 

adverse effect on energy supply. We 

seek comments and supporting 

documentation to address the effects of 

these compliance periods on an 

operator’s operations. These comments 

should address cost, operational 

difficulties in complying, technology 

concerns, and other issues, such as time 

needed to secure necessary permits. We 

also seek comment on whether there are 

simpler and more immediate methods 

an operator could use to identify the 

condition of these regulated rural lowstress pipelines. 

d. Compliance Time Frames for 

Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines 

Unless otherwise indicated the time 

frames shown in the chart below are 

applicable to both onshore rural 

gathering lines and low-stress lines. 

Safety requirement Time frame 

Identification of Line Segments ................................................................ 6 months–12 months following effective date of rule. 

Design, Construction, and Testing of Steel Pipelines .............................. 1 year–2 years following effective date of rule. 

Reporting Requirements ........................................................................... 6 months–12 months following effective date of rule. 

Maximum Operating Pressure .................................................................. 12 months–18 months following effective date of rule. 

Installation of Line Markers ...................................................................... 12 months–18 months following effective date of rule for existing lines. 

Public Education Program ........................................................................ 12 months–18 months following effective date of rule for existing lines. 

Damage Prevention Program ................................................................... 12 months–18 months following effective date of rule for existing lines. 

Corrosion Control Program ...................................................................... 2 years–3 years following effective date of rule. 

Operator Qualification Program ................................................................ 1 year–2 years following effective date of rule. 

Integrity Assessment Program ** .............................................................. 1 year–2 years following effective date of rule. 

Integrity Assessment—50% completed ** ................................................ 3 years–4 years following effective date of rule. 

Completed Integrity Assessments ** ........................................................ 5 years–7 years following effective date of rule. 

Leak Detection Program 5 ........................................................................ 2 years–3 years following effective date of rule. 

e. New Unusually Sensitive Areas 

Proposed § 195.12(c) concerns 

onshorerural low-stress lines that 

become ‘‘regulated rural low-stress 

lines’’ because of a new unusually 

sensitive area. Operators should, at least 

annually, review the NPMS to 

determine whether their unregulated 

low-stress lines have become ‘‘regulated 

rural low-stress lines.’’ We are 

proposing a range of time periods for 

compliance with applicable safety 

requirements when a previously 

unregulated line becomes regulated. We 

would establish a period between six 

months to one year for operators to 

comply with all proposed requirements 

except the integrity assessment, and two 

to three years to do the integrity 

assessment. We request comment and 

supporting documentation that 

addresses the effect of these time frames 

on the costs and feasibility of 

compliance. We want to completely 

understand the impacts of an operator’s 

ability to comply with a shorter or 

longer time frame. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52515 

f. Records 

Proposed § 195.12(d) provides record 

retention requirements. Certain records 

such as the segment identification 

records would have to be retained for 

the life of the pipe. Other records would 

have to be kept according to the record 

keeping requirements of the specific 

section or subpart referenced. 

g. Minor Changes to Existing Rules 

A few corrosion control rules in 

subpart H of part 195 address 

procedures under § 195.402(c)(3). Under 

the requirements proposed for regulated 

rural gathering and low-stress lines, 

operators would have to establish 

corrosion control procedures under 

§ 195.11(b)(9), not under § 195.402(c)(3). 

So in existing §§ 195.555, 195.565, 

195.573(d), and 195.579(d), we are 

proposing to replace ‘‘§ 195.402(c)(3)’’

with ‘‘§§ 195.11(b)(9), 195.12(b)(8) or 

§ 195.402(c)(3).’’

Existing §§ 195.557(a) and 195.563(a) 

refer to pipelines ‘‘constructed, 

relocated, replaced, or otherwise 

changed after the applicable date in 

§ 195.401(c),’’ the deadline for 

compliance with part 195. Comparable 

deadlines for ‘‘regulated rural gathering 

lines and regulated rural low-stress lines 

are in proposed §§ 195.11(b)(9) and 

195.12(b)(8), respectively. Thus, in 

§§ 195.557(a) and 195.563(a), we are 

proposing to replace ‘‘§ 195.401(c)’’ with 

‘‘§§ 195.11(b)(9), 195.12(b)(8) or 

195.401(c).’’

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Policies and Procedures. PHMSA 

considers this proposed rulemaking to 

be a significant regulatory action under 

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993). Therefore, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has received a copy of this 

proposed rulemaking to review. This 

proposed rulemaking is also significant 

under DOT regulatory policies and 

procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 

1979). 

PHMSA prepared a draft Regulatory 

Evaluation of the proposed rule. A copy 

is in Docket No. PHMSA–2003–15864. If 

you have comments about the 

Regulatory Evaluation, please file them 

as described under the ADDRESSES

heading of this document. 

For the purpose of the Regulatory 

Evaluation, PHMSA estimates 599 of the 

2,722 miles of onshore rural hazardous 

liquid gathering lines would be newly 

defined as regulated rural gathering 

lines as a consequence of the proposed 

regulatory changes. Since these lines 

operate at greater than 20 percent of 

SMYS (or 125 psig), PHMSA assumes 

major pipeline firms operate these lines. 

PHMSA estimates 684 of the 5,000 

miles of onshore rural hazardous liquid 

low-stress lines would be newly defined 

as regulated rural low-stress lines as a 

consequence of this proposal. Although 

these lines operate at lower than 20 

percent of SMYS, PHMSA believes the 

affected operators also are major 

pipeline firms. 

PHMSA acknowledges these mileage 

figures are estimates. PHMSA invites 

comments on the reasonableness of 

those estimates. 

Overall, the initial costs of the 

proposed regulatory changes are 

expected to be approximately $5 

million, the recurring annual costs are 

expected to be $2 million during years 

2 through 6, and the recurring annual 

costs are expected to be $1 million for 

years 7 and beyond. The present value 

of the NPRM over 20 years using a 3 

percent discount rate would be $21 

million, while its present value over 20 

years using a 7 percent discount rate 

would be $17 million. 

Evidence suggests the two most 

significant safety problems on onshore 

rural hazardous liquid gathering lines 

and low-stress lines are corrosion and 

excavation damage. The proposed 

regulatory changes address both. 

Consequently, the intended benefits of 

the proposed regulatory changes are that 

they will reduce both. 

It is difficult to quantify the benefits 

that would result from the proposed 

regulatory changes. Information that 

could be used to estimate the benefits 

attributable to improved safety through 

reduced incidents and incident 

consequences on gathering lines is 

difficult to quantify. Benefits due to 

improved safety can be estimated for 

low-stress lines, however. Those 

benefits are $3.3 million per year. The 

present value of those benefits over 20 

years using a 3 percent discount rate 

would be $49 million, while their 

present value over 20 years using a 7 

percent discount rate would be $35 

million. PHMSA invites public 

comment on its cost and benefit 

estimates. 

In addition to any reduction in 

incidents that might be attributable to 

the proposed regulatory changes, we 

expect the proposed changes to improve 

public confidence in the safety of 

onshore hazardous liquid gathering 

lines and low-stress lines in rural areas. 

This we believe would be a significant 

benefit of the proposed regulatory 

changes. 

The proposed rules also may produce 

public benefits by preventing 

disruptions in fuel supply caused by 

pipeline failures. Any interruption in 

fuel supply impacts the U.S. economy 

by putting upward pressure on the 

prices paid by businesses and 

consumers. Supply disruptions also 

have national security implications, 

because they increase dependence on 

foreign sources of oil. In most cases, we 

would not expect failures of onshore 

rural gathering lines to have significant 

impacts on fuel supply. However, lowstress pipelines in Alaska feeding major 

liquid pipelines are important links in 

the fuel supply chain, as recent 

incidents have illustrated. 

Other additional benefits expected to 

result from the proposed rule include 

avoided environmental and other 

damage from pipeline spills. These 

benefits can be significant. For example, 

on January 1, 1990, a low-stress pipeline 

operated by Exxon ruptured and 

eventually spilled 567,000 gallons of 

No. 2 fuel oil into the Arthur Kill, which 

separates Staten Island from New Jersey. 

The incident has a known cost of nearly 

$84 million (in 2005 dollars). While the 

figure includes costs attributable to the 

spill response by the responsible 

parties, the natural resources damage 

assessment, penalties, and ‘‘Other’’, it 

does not include any public response 

costs or third party claims against the 

responsible parties. Even though the 

proposed rule does not include such 

costs in its cost estimates, if the rule 

would prevent only one incident similar 

to the Arthur Kill spill during the first 

20 years, the overall benefits of the 

proposed rule could potentially increase 

by between 95% and 166%. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), PHMSA must consider whether 

its rulemaking actions would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

PHMSA assumes major pipeline firms 

operate the lines that will be regulated 

under this proposal. These operators are 

already subject to part 195 because they 

operate pipelines covered by part 195. 

These operators will experience slight 

added costs because they will be 

required to fold their newly regulated 

rural gathering lines into their existing 

part 195 compliance programs. 

PHMSA consulted the International 

Petroleum Association of America 

(IPAA), which represents over 6,000 

independent crude oil and natural gas 

producers throughout the U.S., and 

IPAA believes small operators would 

not be impacted. PHMSA also consulted 

with the Small Business 

Administration, which also believes this 

proposal will not impact small entities. 

Therefore, PHMSA does not expect the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
52516 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

6This EA considers the pipeline safety actions 

proposed for rural onshore gathering and low-stress 

pipelines. This EA does not consider other actions 

that operators are required to take to comply with 

other statutory authorities, such as the Clean Water 

Act. 

proposed rules to impact any small 

entities. 

Based on these facts, I certify that a 

small number of major operators will 

experience increased costs, but this 

impact will not be a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. PHMSA 

invites public comment on its estimate 

of the number of small entities that 

would become subject to part 195 for 

the first time as a result of this 

rulemaking. 

Executive Order 13175. PHMSA has 

analyzed this proposed rulemaking 

according to the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments.’’ Because 

the proposed rulemaking would not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments nor impose substantial 

direct compliance costs, the funding 

and consultation requirements of 

Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

proposed rulemaking contains 

information collection requirements 

applicable to operators of hazardous 

liquid gathering lines and low-stress 

lines in rural areas. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), PHMSA has submitted 

a paperwork analysis to the Office of 

Management and Budget for its review. 

Operators of rural gathering lines and 

low-stress lines proposed to be 

regulated would have to comply with 

part 195 information collection 

requirements regarding corrosion 

control, damage prevention programs, 

public education programs, and 

accident reporting. These operators 

would also have to comply with the 

information collection requirements in 

49 CFR part 199 concerning drug and 

alcohol testing. 

Certain gathering lines and low-stress 

lines in nonrural areas are currently 

subject to part 195. The number of 

gathering line and low-stress line 

operators subject to regulation may vary 

as lines are brought into and taken out 

of service and as changes occur in the 

boundaries of nonrural locations. If the 

proposed rules become final, this 

number also may vary as changes occur 

in the boundaries of unusually sensitive 

areas. 

PHMSA currently has an OMB 

approved information collection request 

(2137–0047) for hazardous liquid 

operators under its jurisdiction. PHMSA 

currently has an OMB approved 

information collection request (2137–

0047) for hazardous liquid operators 

under its jurisdiction. This proposed 

rule, if adopted, will not increase the 

number of operators under PHMSA 

jurisdiction and will only marginally 

increase the burden hours currently 

approved under OMB No. 2137–0047. 

We estimate that this proposal will 

require an additional burden of 8 hours. 

This is for all impacted operators. The 

total cost of this operator burden is 

approximately $520.56 (= $65.07 × 8 

hours, assuming a senior engineer 

costing $65.07 fully loaded is preparing 

the incident reports). 

Type of Information Collection 

Request: Revision of an Existing 

Collection. 

Title of Information Collection: 

Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by 

Pipeline. 

Recordkeeping and Accident 

Reporting Requirements Respondents: 

Estimated 0 new operators. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

New Respondents: 0 hours. 

PHMSA invites comments on the 

above estimates. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This proposed rulemaking does 

not include unfunded mandates under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. It would not result in costs of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) to either State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, and it is the least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objective of the proposed 

rulemaking. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

PHMSA has analyzed the proposed 

rulemaking for purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). PHMSA has preliminarily 

determined that the proposed 

rulemaking is unlikely to significantly 

affect the quality of the human 

environment. 

The proposed rulemaking would 

require only limited physical 

modification or other work that would 

disturb pipeline rights-of-way, such as, 

identifying segments of pipelines 

meeting the regulatory definitions, 

inspection and testing, installing and 

maintaining line markers, implementing 

corrosion controls, pipeline cleaning, 

and establishing integrity assessment 

and leak detection programs. All of 

these activities result in negligible to 

minor negative environmental impact. 

PHMSA also believes that many of these 

safety measures (for example, 

implementing corrosion control and 

installing and maintaining line markers) 

are already being undertaken for a large 

portion of the pipeline mileage that 

would become regulated under the 

proposed rules. Furthermore, by 

requiring these and other safety rules 

such as accident reporting, 

implementing public education and 

damage prevention programs, and 

establishing operator qualification 

programs, it is likely the number of 

spills on rural gathering lines and lowstress lines will be reduced, thereby 

resulting in minor to moderate positive 

environmental impact that would offset 

the negative environmental impacts.6

An environmental assessment 

document is available for review in 

Docket No. PHMSA–2003–15864. A 

final determination on environmental 

impact will be made following the close 

of the comment period. If you have any 

comments about this draft and 

environmental assessment, please 

submit them as described under the 

ADDRESSES heading of this document. 

Executive Order 13132. PHMSA has 

analyzed the proposed rulemaking 

according to the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132 

(‘‘Federalism’’). None of the proposed 

regulatory requirements (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. 

Although the state consultation 

requirements do not apply to this 

proposed regulatory action because 

there are no preemption issues, PHMSA 

has involved state pipeline safety 

personnel in discussing approaches on 

regulating rural gathering and low-stress 

pipelines. PHMSA representatives met 

on several occasions with the National 

Association of Pipeline Safety 

Representatives (NAPSR), an 

organization of state pipeline safety 

personnel, to discuss regulation of rural 

onshore gathering pipelines. In 

September 2003 and February 2004, 

PHMSA met with the NAPSR gathering 

pipeline committee and also gave 

presentations at the national NAPSR 

meetings in 2004 and 2005. In 2003, 

PHMSA discussed the potential impact 

of a regulation on rural liquid gathering 

pipelines with State officials in West 

Virginia and Louisiana. In April 2006, 

PHMSA looked at the impact of the 

regulation on rural gathering and lowstress pipelines in West Virginia and 

Ohio. PHMSA also met with State 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52517 

officials at the Texas Railroad 

Commission in April 2002 to gather data 

on rural low-stress lines in Texas. 

Further, PHMSA talked to the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation about low-stress lines in 

Alaska. 

Executive Order 13211. The 

transportation of hazardous liquids 

through rural gathering lines and lowstress lines has a substantial aggregate 

effect on the nation’s available energy 

supply. However, after analysis, 

PHMSA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ under Executive Order 13211. It 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. It is 

possible avoiding future spills may have 

a positive effect on the supply of energy. 

We invite comments on the Energy 

Impact Analysis, which is available for 

review in the docket. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195 

Carbon dioxide, Crude oil, Petroleum, 

Pipeline safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, PHMSA proposes 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 CFR1.53. 

2. Amend § 195.1 to revise the section 

heading and to revise paragraphs (a) and 

(b), to redesignate paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (d) and to add a new 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 195.1 Which pipelines are covered by 

this part? 

(a) Except for the pipelines listed in 

paragraph (c) of this section, this part 

applies to pipeline facilities and the 

transportation of hazardous liquids or 

carbon dioxide associated with those 

facilities in or affecting interstate or 

foreign commerce, including pipeline 

facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS). 

(b) This part applies to: 

(1) Any pipeline that transports a 

highly volatile liquid (HVL); 

(2) Transportation through any 

pipeline, other than a gathering line, 

that has maximum operating pressure 

(MOP) greater than 20 percent of the 

specified minimum yield strength; 

(3) Any pipeline segment that crosses 

a waterway currently used for 

commercial navigation; 

(4) Transportation of petroleum in any 

of the following onshore gathering 

pipelines: 

(i) A pipeline located in a non-rural 

area; 

(ii) A regulated rural gathering 

pipeline defined in § 195.11. The 

requirements for these lines are 

provided in § 195.11; or 

(iii) A pipeline located in an inlet of 

the Gulf of Mexico. These lines are only 

subject to the requirements in § 195.413; 

(5) Transportation of a hazardous 

liquid or carbon dioxide through a lowstress pipeline in a non-rural area; or 

(6) Transportation of a hazardous 

liquid through a regulated low-stress 

pipeline in a rural area as defined in 

§ 195.12. The requirements for these 

lines are provided in § 195.12. 

(c) This part does not apply to any of 

the following—

(1) Transportation of a hazardous 

liquid transported in a gaseous state; 

(2) Transportation of a hazardous 

liquid through a pipeline by gravity; 

(3) A pipeline subject to safety 

regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard; 

(4) A low-stress pipeline that serves 

refining, manufacturing, or truck, rail, or 

vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline 

is less than 1-mile long (measured 

outside facility grounds) and does not 

cross an offshore area or a waterway 

currently used for commercial 

navigation; 

(5) Transportation of hazardous liquid 

or carbon dioxide in an offshore 

pipeline in State waters where the 

pipeline is located upstream from the 

outlet flange of the following farthest 

downstream facility: the facility where 

hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide are 

produced or the facility where produced 

hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide are first 

separated, dehydrated, or otherwise 

processed; 

(6) Transportation of hazardous liquid 

or carbon dioxide in a pipeline on the 

OCS where the pipeline is located 

upstream of the point at which 

operating responsibility transfers from a 

producing operator to a transporting 

operator; 

(7) A pipeline segment upstream 

(generally seaward) of the last valve on 

the last production facility on the OCS 

where a pipeline on the OCS is 

producer-operated and crosses into 

State waters without first connecting to 

a transporting operator’s facility on the 

OCS. Safety equipment protecting 

PHMSA-regulated pipeline segments is 

not excluded. A producing operator of 

a segment falling within this exception 

may petition the Administrator, under 

49 CFR § 190.9, for approval to operate 

under PHMSA regulations governing 

pipeline design, construction, operation, 

and maintenance. 

(8) Transportation of a hazardous 

liquid or carbon dioxide through 

onshore production (including flow 

lines), refining, or manufacturing 

facilities or storage or in-plant piping 

systems associated with such facilities; 

(9) Transportation of a hazardous 

liquid or carbon dioxide—

(i) By vessel, aircraft, tank truck, tank 

car, or other non-pipeline mode of 

transportation; or 

(ii) Through facilities located on the 

grounds of a materials transportation 

terminal if the facilities are used 

exclusively to transfer hazardous liquid 

or carbon dioxide between non-pipeline 

modes of transportation or between a 

non-pipeline mode and a pipeline. 

These facilities do not include any 

device and associated piping that are 

necessary to control pressure in the 

pipeline under § 195.406(b); or, 

(10) Transportation of carbon dioxide 

downstream from the applicable 

following point: 

(i) The inlet of a compressor used in 

the injection of carbon dioxide for oil 

recovery operations, or the point where 

recycled carbon dioxide enters the 

injection system, whichever is farther 

upstream; or 

(ii) The connection of the first branch 

pipeline in the production field where 

the pipeline transports carbon dioxide 

to an injection well or to a header or 

manifold from which a pipeline 

branches to an injection well. 

(d) Breakout tanks subject to this part 

must comply with requirements that 

apply specifically to breakout tanks and, 

to the extent applicable, with 

requirements that apply to pipeline 

systems and pipeline facilities. If a 

conflict exists between a requirement 

that applies specifically to breakout 

tanks and a requirement that applies to 

pipeline systems or pipeline facilities, 

the requirement that applies specifically 

to breakout tanks prevails. Anhydrous 

ammonia breakout tanks need not 

comply with §§ 195.132(b), 195.205(b), 

195.242 (c) and (d), 195.264 (b) and (e), 

195.307, 195.428 (c) and (d), and 

195.432 (b) and (c). 

3. Amend § 195.3(c) by revising item 

B. (12) of the 49 CFR Reference table to 

read ‘‘§§ 195.12(b)(11), 195.134, 

195.444.’’

4. Add § 195.11 and § 195.12 to read 

as follows: 

§ 195.11 What is a regulated rural 

gathering line and what requirements 

apply? 

Each operator of a regulated rural 

gathering line, as defined in paragraph 

(a) of this section, must comply with the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
52518 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

safety requirements described in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(a) Definition. As used in this section, 

a regulated rural gathering line means 

an onshore gathering line in a rural area 

that meets all of the following criteria—

(1) Has a nominal diameter between 

65⁄8 inches (168 mm) and 85⁄8 inches 

(219.1 mm); 

(2) Is located in, or within 1⁄4-mile (.40 

km) of an unusually sensitive area as 

defined in § 195.6; and 

(3) Operates at a maximum pressure 

established under § 195.406 

corresponding to—

(i) A stress level greater than 20 

percent of the specified minimum yield 

strength of the line pipe; or 

(ii) If the stress level is unknown or 

the pipeline is not constructed with 

steel pipe, a pressure of more than 125 

psi (861 kPa) gage. 

(b) Safety requirements. Each operator 

must prepare, follow, and maintain 

written procedures to carry out the 

requirements of this section. Except for 

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) 

and (b)(9) of this section, the safety 

requirements are applicable to all 

materials of construction. 

(1) Identify all segments of regulated 

rural gathering pipeline within [6 

months–12 months following effective 

date of final rule]. 

(2) For steel pipelines constructed, 

replaced, relocated, or otherwise 

changed after [1 year–2 years following 

effective date of final rule], design, 

install, construct, initially inspect, and 

initially test the pipeline according to 

this part, unless the pipeline is 

converted under § 195.5. 

(3) For non-steel pipelines 

constructed after [1 year following 

effective date of final rule], notify the 

Administrator according to § 195.8. 

(4) Beginning [6 months–12 months 

following effective date of final rule], 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in subpart B of this part. 

(5) Establish the maximum operating 

pressure of the pipeline according to 

§ 195.406 before transportation begins, 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [12 months–18 

months following effective date of final 

rule]. 

(6) Install and maintain line markers 

according to § 195.410 before 

transportation begins, or if the pipeline 

exists on [effective date of final rule], 

before [12 months–18 months following 

effective date of final rule]. 

(7) Establish and apply a public 

education program according to 

§ 195.440 before transportation begins, 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [12 months–18 

months following effective date of final 

rule]. 

(8) Establish and apply a damage 

prevention program according to 

§ 195.442 before transportation begins, 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [12 months–18 

months following effective date of final 

rule]. 

(9) For steel pipelines, control and 

remediate corrosion according to 

subpart H of this part, except corrosion 

control is not required for pipelines 

existing on [effective date of final rule] 

before [2 years–3 years following 

effective date of final rule]. In addition 

to the requirements in subpart H, 

continuously monitor to identify and 

remediate any changes in operating 

conditions that could necessitate 

cleaning the lines and accelerating the 

corrosion control program. 

(10) Demonstrate compliance with the 

Operator Qualification program 

requirements in subpart G of this part by 

describing the processes used to 

determine the qualification of persons 

performing operations and maintenance 

tasks. These processes must be 

established before transportation begins 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [1 year–2 years 

following the effective date of the final 

rule]. 

(c) New unusually sensitive areas. If, 

after [effective date of final rule], a new 

unusually sensitive area is identified 

and a segment of pipeline becomes 

regulated as a result, the operator must 

implement the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(10) of this 

section within [ six months–one year] 

for the affected segment. 

(d) Records. An operator must 

maintain the segment identification 

records required in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section for the life of the pipe. For 

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) 

through (b)(10) of this section, an 

operator must maintain the records 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with each requirement according to the 

record retention requirements of the 

referenced section or subpart. 

§ 195.12 Which low-stress lines in rural 

areas are regulated and what requirements 

apply? 

Each operator of a regulated low-stress 

line in a rural area, as defined in 

paragraph (a) of this section, must 

comply with the safety requirements 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(a) Definition. As used in this section, 

a regulated low-stress line in a rural 

area means an onshore line in a rural 

area that meets all of the following 

criteria: 

(1) Has a nominal diameter of 85⁄8

inches (219.1 mm) or more; 

(2) Is located in, or within 1⁄4-mile (.40 

km) of, an unusually sensitive area as 

defined in § 195.6; and 

(3) Operates at a maximum pressure 

established under § 195.406 

corresponding to—

(i) A stress level equal to or less than 

20 percent of the specified minimum 

yield strength of the line pipe; or 

(ii) If the stress level is unknown or 

the pipeline is not constructed with 

steel pipe, a pressure equal to or less 

than 125 psi (861 kPa) gage. 

(b) Safety requirements. Each operator 

must prepare, follow, and maintain 

written procedures to carry out the 

requirements of this section. Except for 

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) 

and (b)(8) of this section, the safety 

requirements in this section are 

applicable to all materials of 

construction. 

(1) Identify all segments of regulated 

low-stress pipeline in rural locations 

before [6 months–12 months following 

effective date of final rule]. 

(2) For steel pipelines constructed, 

replaced, relocated, or otherwise 

changed after [1 year–2 years following 

effective date of final rule], design, 

install, construct, initially inspect, and 

initially test the pipeline according to 

this part, unless the pipeline is 

converted under § 195.5. 

(3) Beginning [6 months–12 months 

following effective date of final rule], 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in subpart B of this part. 

(4) Establish the maximum operating 

pressure of the pipeline according to 

§ 195.406 before transportation begins, 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [12 months–18 

months following effective date of final 

rule]. 

(5) Install and maintain line markers 

according to § 195.410 before 

transportation begins, or if the pipeline 

exists on [effective date of final rule], 

before [12 months–18 months following 

effective date of final rule] 

(6) Establish and apply a public 

education program according to 

§ 195.440 before transportation begins, 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [12 months–18 

months following effective date of final 

rule]. 

(7) Establish and apply a damage 

prevention program according to 

§ 195.442 before transportation begins, 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [12 months–18 

months following effective date of final 

rule]. 

(8) For steel pipelines, control and 

remediate corrosion according to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules 52519 

subpart H of this part, except corrosion 

control is not required for pipelines 

existing on [effective date of final rule] 

before [2 years–3 years following 

effective date of final rule]. In addition 

to the requirements in subpart H, 

continuously monitor to identify and 

remediate any changes in operating 

conditions that could necessitate 

cleaning the lines and accelerating the 

corrosion control program. 

(9) Demonstrate compliance with the 

Operator Qualification program 

requirements in subpart G of this part by 

describing the processes used to 

determine the qualification of persons 

performing operations and maintenance 

tasks. These processes must be 

established before transportation begins 

or if the pipeline exists on [effective 

date of final rule], before [1 year–2 years 

following the effective date of the final 

rule]. 

(10) Establish and apply a program to 

assess the integrity of the regulated 

pipeline segments to determine and 

remediate any condition presenting a 

threat to the integrity of these segments 

before [12 months–24 months following 

effective date of final rule]. These 

conditions are not limited to those 

caused by corrosion and third-party 

damage. An operator may use in-line 

inspection tools, pressure testing 

conducted in accordance with subpart E 

of this part, or other technology the 

operator demonstrates can provide an 

equivalent understanding about the 

condition of line pipe. An operator must 

prioritize the regulated rural low-stress 

segments for the integrity assessment 

and conduct the integrity assessment of 

at least 50 percent of these segments 

before [36 months–48 months following 

effective date of final rule], and 

complete the assessment for all 

regulated segments before [60 months–

84 months following effective date of 

final rule]. An operator must establish 

reassessment intervals for continually 

assessing the pipe segments. The 

intervals must be as frequent as 

necessary to ensure the continued 

integrity of each pipe segment, but may 

not exceed 68 months. An operator may 

be able to justify an engineering basis 

for a longer assessment interval on a 

segment of line pipe. The justification 

must be supported by a reliable 

engineering evaluation. 

(11) Establish and apply a program, 

based on API 1130, or other appropriate 

method suitable for the commodity 

being transported to detect leaks on the 

regulated segments before [24 months–

36 months following effective date of 

the final rule]. The leak detection 

method cannot be based solely on field 

personnel’s visual and olfactory senses. 

The program must evaluate the 

capability of the leak detection means. 

The evaluation must consider the 

following factors: 

(i) Length and diameter of the 

pipeline; 

(ii) Product transported; 

(iii) Timeliness of detection 

capability; and 

(iv) Proximity of response personnel 

and equipment. 

(c) New unusually sensitive areas. If, 

after [effective date of final rule], a new 

unusually sensitive area is identified 

and a segment of pipeline becomes 

regulated as a result, the operator must 

take the following actions: 

(1) Implement the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(9) and (b) 

(11) of this section within six months–

one year from the date the area is 

identified; and 

(2) Complete the assessment required 

by paragraph (b)(10) of this section 

within two years–three years from the 

date the area is identified. 

(d) Records. An operator must 

maintain the segment identification 

records required in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section for the life of the pipe. For 

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) 

through (b)(9) of this section, an 

operator must maintain the records 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with each requirement according to the 

record retention requirements of the 

referenced section or subpart. For the 

integrity assessment program required 

in paragraph (b)(10) and the leak 

detection program required in paragraph 

(b)(11), an operator must maintain the 

records for the life of the pipe. 

5. Amend §§ 195.555, 195.565, 

195.573(d), and 195.579(d) by removing 

‘‘§ 195.402(c)(3)’’ and adding, in its 

place, ‘‘§§ 195.11(b)(9), 195.12(b)(8) or 

§ 195.402(c)(3).’’

6. Amend §§ 195.557(a) and 

195.563(a) by removing ‘‘§ 195.401(c)’’

and adding in its place, ‘‘§§ 195.11(b)(9), 

195.12((b)(8)) or § 195.401(c).’’

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 

2006. 

Jeffrey D. Wiese, 

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 06–7438 Filed 8–31–06; 11:46 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 060823223–6223–01; I.D. 

072706B] 

RIN 0648–AT63 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Tilefish 

Fishery; Proposed Total Allowable 

Landings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a change to 

the annual total allowable landings 

(TAL) for the tilefish fishery. The MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council 

(Council) met in May 2006 and 

recommended an increase in the TAL 

from 905 mt to 987 mt. This 

recommendation is, in part, a result of 

positive findings from the 2005 tilefish 

stock assessment that concluded that 

the tilefish stock is not overfished and 

overfishing is not occurring. This action 

complies with the Fishery Management 

Plan for the Tilefish Fishery (FMP). 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

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

on September 21, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting 

documents, including the Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR) and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

are available from Daniel Furlong, 

Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, Room 

2115, Federal Building, 300 South New 

Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. A copy of 

the RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 

Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ 

nero/regs/com.html. 

Written comments on the proposed 

specifications may be submitted by any 

of the following methods: 

• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, Northeast Region, 

NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. Mark on 

the outside of the envelope: ‘‘Comments 

on Tilefish Proposed Specifications.’’

• Fax: (978) 281–9135. 

• E-mail: 0648AT63@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line of the e-mail 

the following document identifier: 

‘‘Comments on Tilefish Proposed 

Specifications.’’


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL