```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28008-28016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864; Notice 4]
RIN 2137-AD98

Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural 
Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 
PHMSA is modifying its pending proposal for regulating rural low-stress 
hazardous liquid pipelines within a prescribed buffer of an ``unusually 
sensitive area'' (USA). This modification addresses new requirements in 
the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 
2006 (PIPES Act). We propose to apply all Federal hazardous liquid 
pipeline safety regulations to these pipelines instead of the narrower, 
threat-focused set of requirements we originally proposed to apply to 
these pipelines. This action will help protect USAs from the potential 
adverse impacts of releases from low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines 
in rural areas.

DATES: Anyone may submit written comments on the proposed regulatory 
changes by June 18, 2007. Comments that are filed will be considered to 
the extent possible.

ADDRESSES: Reference Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864 and submit comments in 
one of the following ways:
    (1) DOT Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. To submit comments on the DOT 
electronic docket site, click ``Comment/Submissions,'' click 
``Continue,'' fill in the requested information, click ``Continue,'' 
enter your comment, then click ``Submit;''
    (2) Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
    (3) Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    (4) Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room PL-401 on the 
plaza of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays; or
    (5) E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows 
the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by 
any agency.
    Instructions: Identify docket number PHMSA-2003-15864 at the 
beginning of your comments. If you send comments by mail, please 
provide two copies. If you wish to receive PHMSA's confirmation 
receipt, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may 
file comments at http://www.regulations.gov, and may access all 
comments received by DOT at http://dms.dot.gov by performing a simple 
search for the docket number. Note: All comments will post without 
changes or edits to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal 
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Section 
VIII, Regulatory Analyses and Notices, of the Supplementary 
Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lane Miller by phone at (405) 954-4969 
or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 
6, 2006 (71 FR 52504) proposing to extend certain threat-focused 
pipeline safety regulations to rural onshore low-stress hazardous 
liquid pipelines within a prescribed buffer of previously defined USAs. 
Low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines, except those in populated areas 
or that cross commercially navigable waterways, have not been subject 
to the safety regulations in 49 CFR Part 195.\1\ Unusually sensitive 
areas are areas requiring extra protection because of the presence of 
sole-source drinking water resources, endangered species, or other 
ecological resources that could be adversely affected by accidents or 
leaks occurring on hazardous liquid pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a full discussion of the background concerning 
historical treatment of rural low-stress pipelines and the decision 
to apply safety regulations at this time, see the September 6, 2006 
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed to define a category of ``regulated rural onshore 
low-stress lines''--rural lines operating at or below 20% SMYS, with a 
diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or greater, located in or within a quarter-
mile of a USA--and to require operators of these lines to comply with a 
threat-focused set of requirements in Part 195 that already apply to 
other hazardous liquid pipelines.\2\ The proposed safety

[[Page 28009]]

requirements addressed the most common threats to the integrity of 
these rural lines: Corrosion and third party damage. The proposal was 
intended to provide additional integrity protection, to avoid 
significant adverse environmental consequences, and to improve public 
confidence in the safety of these unregulated low-stress lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The NPRM also proposed to apply threat-focused Part 195 
safety requirements to rural onshore gathering lines located in or 
within \1/4\ mile of a USA. Rural gathering lines are not in the 
PIPES Act mandate and therefore, are not part of this SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 
2006

    The PIPES Act was signed into law on December 29, 2006 (Pub. L. No. 
109-468). The PIPES Act includes provisions affecting hazardous liquid 
pipelines operating at low-stress (i.e., hoop stress less than 20 
percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS)). Specifically, 
section four of the PIPES Act requires that PHMSA ``issue regulations 
subjecting low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines to the same standards 
and regulations as other hazardous liquid pipelines'' with some limited 
exceptions. The Act expressly authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to adopt the new regulations in phases.
    The focused requirements the NPRM proposed to apply to those non-
regulated rural low-stress lines specified in the NPRM would not 
fulfill the PIPES Act requirement. Finalizing that proposal without 
change would thus impose some requirements on those pipelines, only to 
be followed by additional regulations imposing further requirements 
soon after. PHMSA considers that such sequential application of 
requirements would be inefficient and would pose an unnecessary 
additional burden on pipeline operators. Further, PHMSA notes that the 
low-stress pipelines covered by the proposed rule are those where 
additional safety regulation is most important--larger diameter 
pipelines that could adversely affect USAs. PHMSA therefore concludes 
that the most appropriate and expeditious means of implementing the 
PIPES Act mandate is in phases. In phase one, we are modifying the 
September 2006 NPRM proposal via this SNPRM to add to the requirements 
to be applied to the higher-risk, larger-diameter rural low-stress 
pipelines we proposed to regulate. (The PIPES Act explicitly provides 
that the regulations issued shall not apply to gathering lines. 
Gathering lines are not addressed in this SNPRM, and the requirements 
proposed for those lines in rural areas remain as described in the 
September 2006 NPRM.)
    The phase one rulemaking applies to those low-stress pipelines 8\5/
8\ inches or greater in diameter located in or within a half-mile of a 
USA, as defined in 49 CFR 195.6. For this phase, PHMSA collected 
preliminary information from large pipeline operators about the extent 
and location of low-stress pipeline not currently subject to 
regulation. PHMSA found some of these larger pipeline operators have 
considerable mileage of low-stress pipeline not currently subject to 
regulation, while others do not. Based on this information and 
operators' testimony at Congressional hearings, PHMSA believes most 
operators of these larger-diameter low-stress pipelines also operate 
pipeline at higher stresses or operate regulated low-stress pipe within 
populated areas. Nevertheless, to ensure that PHMSA has complete data 
on the lines that will be affected by this proposal, PHMSA seeks public 
comment and data on the extent of rural low-stress pipelines 8\5/8\ 
inches or greater in diameter.
    In phase two, PHMSA will initiate a separate rulemaking to make 
Part 195 safety standards applicable to all remaining unregulated rural 
low-stress pipelines. One of the main reasons for the two-phase 
approach is the lack of data PHMSA has about the extent of smaller-
diameter rural low-stress pipelines. Operators with only rural low-
stress pipelines that do not cross commercially navigable waterways are 
not now subject to pipeline safety regulations. Although the Pipeline 
Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60132) requires 
operators of pipeline facilities (except for distribution and gathering 
lines) to submit location information to the National Pipeline Mapping 
System (NPMS), PHMSA only required this information only from operators 
of regulated pipelines. Thus, other than information that may have been 
submitted to the NPMS, PHMSA lacks adequate knowledge of this community 
of pipeline operators. PHMSA does not have information on the number of 
such operators, or on the total mileage of small-diameter low-stress 
pipeline they operate, nor does PHMSA have information on the mileage 
of large-diameter low-stress pipelines located outside of USAs. PHMSA 
will need this information, or a reasonable basis from which to 
estimate it, for the second phase of the rulemaking. PHMSA seeks public 
comment on the extent of rural low-stress pipelines less than 8\5/8\ 
inches in diameter as well as the total mileage of low-stress pipelines 
currently in service.
    To better understand the rural low-stress infrastructure and the 
risks it poses, PHMSA is proposing in this SNPRM to extend the 
reporting requirements of Subpart B of Part 195 to operators of all 
currently unregulated rural low-stress pipelines. Our proposal would 
require any operator of a rural low-stress pipeline file annual reports 
as well as reports of accidents and significant conditions affecting 
safety. In addition to the reporting requirements of Subpart B, we are 
reminding operators of pipeline facilities that 49 U.S.C 60132 requires 
them to submit information on these lines to the NPMS. This combination 
of reporting requirements will help improve the completeness and 
accuracy of information for this community of pipeline operators.
    Although for the phase one SNPRM, PHMSA collected preliminary 
information from some large pipeline operators about the extent and 
location of rural low-stress pipeline not currently subject to 
regulation, this limited number of operators may not be representative 
of the broader community of operators of these pipelines. Therefore, to 
have the adequate data for phase two, we plan to request the approval 
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct a broader 
survey to obtain more accurate and representative data.

III. Advisory Committee

    On February 12, 2007, PHMSA convened, via telephone conference, a 
meeting of its Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards 
Committee (THLPSSC). The THLPSSC is a statutorily mandated advisory 
committee that advises PHMSA about the technical feasibility, 
reasonableness and cost-effectiveness of its proposed regulations. The 
purpose of the meeting was to inform the committee about PHMSA's two 
phase approach to carrying out the PIPES Act mandate on low-stress 
pipelines by addressing the higher-risk larger-diameter pipelines 
first. PHMSA also discussed some of the key comments to the NPRM. The 
committee did not vote on PHMSA's approach but offered comments about 
particular proposed requirements and on whether operators of these low-
stress pipelines would have economic and operational difficulties in 
complying with Part 195 requirements. Although some committee members 
favored extending all of Part 195 immediately to all unregulated low-
stress pipelines, the majority supported the two phase approach 
described above. The majority agreed PHMSA should proceed with 
addressing the higher risk low-stress

[[Page 28010]]

pipelines first to ensure that needed protections for these lines are 
put into place promptly. The THLPSSC's comments are discussed below in 
the relevant sections of this preamble.

IV. Comments on September 6, 2006 NPRM

    PHMSA received several written comments in response to the 
September 6, 2006, NPRM. These comments, addressed below, along with 
the THLPSSC's comments, have affected the approach being taken in this 
SNPRM.

Buffer Size

    The NPRM proposed to define regulated rural low-stress pipelines 
through use of a quarter-mile buffer around USAs. Specifically, 
pipelines of 8\5/8\ inches or greater in diameter and operating at 
stress levels equal to or less than 20 percent SMYS would be regulated 
if they were located in or within a quarter-mile of a USA. Cook Inlet 
Keeper, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, the Pipeline Safety 
Trust and Cook Inlet Regional Advisory Council questioned the adequacy 
of this quarter-mile buffer. In particular, these commenters suggested 
that spilled oil or petroleum product that entered a waterway could 
travel further and affect USAs more than a quarter-mile from the 
pipeline. Other commenters suggested that the rule should allow 
operators to conduct a comprehensive spread analysis to reduce or 
increase the buffer size. Through such an analysis, operators would 
determine the extent to which spilled product would spread, considering 
local topography and other conditions. Operators could have several 
reasons for using comprehensive spread analysis. For example, local 
topography may be such that use of a quarter-mile buffer would be 
excessive (e.g., the USA is uphill from the pipeline and could not be 
affected by a release) or that the buffer may be too small (e.g., a 
fast-moving waterway could transport spilled product to a USA more than 
a quarter of a mile away). At the same time, specifying a buffer 
distance provides a reasonable degree of protection and allows 
operators to avoid the expense and burden of conducting a comprehensive 
spread analysis in circumstances where they conclude such an analysis 
is not needed.
    At the committee meeting, PHMSA discussed widening the buffer to 
one-half mile and allowing use of comprehensive spread analysis. 
Several THLPSSC members agreed with allowing the comprehensive spread 
analysis as an alternative. One THLPSSC member recommended PHMSA not 
use the half-mile buffer, but instead, only allow the comprehensive 
spread analysis.
    As stated in the NPRM, incident data indicates that a buffer of a 
quarter-mile is sufficient. PHMSA believes that a quarter-mile buffer 
will encompass the vast majority of currently unregulated rural low-
stress pipeline that could affect a USA. Nevertheless, PHMSA has 
increased the proposed buffer to a half-mile to further ensure a 
release from a low-stress pipeline does not affect a USA.
    For purposes of applying integrity management (IM) requirements, 
PHMSA agrees that operators should have the option of using 
comprehensive spread analyses in lieu of the half-mile buffer. Such 
analyses are how operators determine which segments of their hazardous 
liquid pipelines operating at stress levels greater than 20 percent 
SMYS are subject to the IM requirements in Sec.  195.452. These 
analyses can be costly. Low-stress pipelines pose less risk, because 
the quantity of product that would be released in the event of a leak 
and the rate at which it would be released is less than for pipelines 
operating at higher pressure. PHMSA considers that operators of rural 
low-stress pipelines should be able to use the half-mile buffer to 
identify their pipeline segments subject to IM requirements in lieu of 
conducting a spread analysis, but accepts that operators may want to do 
more comprehensive analysis to determine with more precision the 
segments that could affect a USA.
    PHMSA has therefore modified the proposed rule to define those low-
stress lines in rural areas that will become subject to regulation at 
this time as those in or within a half-mile of a USA. The proposed rule 
further allows operators to use comprehensive spread analysis, in lieu 
of the buffer, to determine the portions of its pipeline that could 
affect a USA. Where such analysis is used, only that portion of the 
pipeline that can affect the USA will become subject to IM 
requirements.

Leak Detection

    The NPRM proposed that operators of regulated low-stress pipelines 
in rural areas ``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.'' Several commenters 
addressed this requirement, noting that API 1130 is not applicable to 
all low-stress lines. The relatively limited flow through many lines 
and the start-and-stop nature of the flow make it difficult to apply 
current leak detection methods.
    THLPSSC members did not support this proposed requirement. They 
recommended PHMSA not apply this requirement exclusively to rural low-
stress pipelines before PHMSA addresses it for other pipelines. The 
Committee suggested PHMSA should instead apply the existing leak 
detection capabilities requirement in Sec.  195.452 to rural low-stress 
pipelines.
    This issue has been rendered moot by the statutory mandate that all 
requirements of Part 195 be applied to low-stress pipelines. Pipelines 
affected by this rulemaking will be subject to the requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  195.134, 195.444 and 195.452(i)(3). PHMSA recognizes that on 
low-stress pipelines, a leak may go undetected for a while. To more 
promptly detect leaks, some operators have increased the frequency of 
their patrolling programs and enhanced their public education programs 
to educate the public about reporting leaks. PHMSA welcomes comment on 
additional measures that may be needed to detect a slow leak more 
quickly. PHMSA continues to do research on new, more effective leak 
detection technologies.

Continuous Monitoring

    The NPRM proposed that operators ``continuously monitor to identify 
and remediate any changes in operating conditions that could 
necessitate cleaning the lines and accelerating the corrosion control 
program.'' This proposed requirement was in addition to the corrosion 
control provisions of subpart H. Several commenters questioned the 
meaning of the requirement to ``continuously monitor.'' They noted that 
it was not clear what actions an operator would have to take to meet 
this requirement. THLPSSC members recommended PHMSA extend the existing 
Subpart H corrosion requirements to rural low-stress pipelines rather 
than define and apply a different requirement for continuous monitoring 
to these pipelines.
    This SNPRM clarifies the requirements. Now that operators of these 
phase one rural low-stress lines will be subject to Sec.  195.452 IM 
requirements, the proposed ``continuously monitor'' requirement would 
be redundant with the requirements for information analysis in Sec.  
195.452(g) and continual evaluation in Sec.  195.452(j). Thus, because 
the IM requirements will address the threat we were trying to address 
in the NPRM, we have deleted the proposed ``continuously monitor'' 
language. Using the information analysis and continual

[[Page 28011]]

evaluation data, operators should pay particular attention to any 
change in operations that could increase the threats to these low-
stress pipelines, particularly the threat of internal corrosion.
    As part of the NPRM's threat-focused requirements, PHMSA had 
proposed that operators clean their lines as necessary based on 
continuous monitoring. Now that we are proposing to subject these lines 
to the IM requirements, cleaning the lines should be part of an 
operator's IM program. As part of an IM program, operators will have to 
conduct a baseline assessment and continual integrity evaluation and 
assessments. Typically, before running a smart pig, operators run a 
cleaning pig. If a hydrostatic test is conducted, operators run a de-
watering pig. And through the information analysis and continual 
evaluation data, operators will be aware of conditions necessitating 
the running of cleaning pigs.
    Additionally, as part of phase two, PHMSA will review Subpart H 
corrosion requirements that apply to all regulated pipelines and 
determine if any modifications, such as requiring cleaning pigs, are 
necessary on a broader scale. PHMSA will undertake this review to 
satisfy the PIPES Act requirement. Section 22 of the PIPES Act requires 
PHMSA, in consultation with the THLPSSC and other appropriate entities, 
to review the internal corrosion regulations in Subpart H to determine 
if they are adequate to ensure that the pipeline facilities to which 
they apply will not present a public safety or environmental hazard.

Economic Burden of Compliance

    Several commenters, including the Independent Petroleum Association 
of America, the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, 
Western States Petroleum Association, Independent Petroleum Association 
of New Mexico, the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, and Oklahoma 
Independent Petroleum Association commented that the proposal could 
have unintended economic consequences on operators of marginal and 
stripper wells. In particular, these commenters noted that the costs to 
perform IM assessments could become prohibitive and could result in 
some operators of low-stress pipelines deciding to abandon their 
pipelines. If all of the assessment alternatives are too costly, the 
operator may abandon the pipeline operation forcing well operators to 
transport their oil by truck. This could result in increased harm to 
the public or environment or in loss of critical energy supply.
    To avoid that outcome, PHMSA has included in this SNPRM a proposal 
providing relief in certain circumstances where the operator decides to 
abandon a low-stress pipeline because of the economic burden of 
complying with the IM assessment requirements of Sec.  195.452. This 
provision is designed to provide an operator the needed flexibility in 
rare, special circumstances where it is economically infeasible for the 
operator to comply with the IM assessment requirements. PHMSA has tried 
to establish a volume for product transport indicative of the point at 
which the economic cost to comply with the IM assessment provision 
would be prohibitive. Thus, under the proposal, an operator of a 
pipeline that carries oil from a production facility at a rate lower 
than or equal to 14,000 barrels per day could obtain relief by 
notifying PHMSA of its decision to abandon the line. PHMSA is proposing 
this rate based on its belief that if an operator is unable to use the 
least costly assessment option (in-line inspection) the cost of 
compliance will be too much of an economic burden. PHMSA understands it 
may be impractical to use in-line inspection (i.e., smart pigs) at flow 
rates below 14,000 barrels per day, because there is insufficient 
movement of product within the line to propel the pig (assuming a 10-
inch diameter pipeline).
    As proposed, for an operator to qualify for the relief, the flow 
rate of its pipeline during operation must be less than 14,000 barrels 
per day. This is the maximum flow rate in the line on any given day. 
This is not an average flow rate. PHMSA understands that some low-
stress pipelines serving marginal wells operate intermittently. A 
pipeline that receives enough volume to run the pig, even on an 
intermittent basis, would not be eligible for the notification 
provision. An example is a 10-inch pipeline that has 30,000 barrels 
pumped into it every 3 days. On average, the pipeline flow rate is 
10,000 barrels per day, but the flow rate every 3 days is enough to run 
a pig. Thus, this pipeline would not be eligible for the notification 
provision even though its average flow rate is 10,000 barrels per day. 
The important factor is the ability to use in-line inspection, which is 
dependent on the actual flow rate, not a rate averaged over periods 
including slack time. If unable to use in-line inspection, it is 
unlikely an operator will choose the costlier options of hydrostatic 
testing or direct assessment. This could then trigger an operator's 
economic decision to abandon the pipeline.
    PHMSA would evaluate the notification by the operator, and consult 
with the Department of Energy (DOE), as appropriate, to help analyze 
the potential energy impact of loss of the pipeline. PHMSA also may, as 
necessary, consult with the appropriate State. PHMSA will stay 
enforcement of the integrity assessment requirement until the analysis 
is complete. If the analysis concludes there would be an adverse energy 
or safety impact, PHMSA would work with the pipeline operator to grant 
a special permit allowing continued operation of the pipeline, while 
also assuring safety through alternative safety requirements. Although 
this provision would be limited to the operators to which the proposed 
criteria apply, any operator may still be able to seek relief from any 
of the other requirements through special permit provisions in 49 
U.S.C. 60118.
    PHMSA invites public comment on this approach, on the 
appropriateness of the proposed threshold, and on other approaches that 
might be used to avoid adverse impact on U.S. energy supply and on 
safety because of the economic burden to comply with the requirements 
proposed in this SNPRM. PHMSA welcomes comment on the appropriate 
criteria for determining the threshold where it is likely the cost to 
comply could result in the unintended consequence of an operator 
shutting down its pipeline operation forcing well operators to 
transport their oil by truck.
    Other comments to the NPRM are not relevant to this SNPRM. PHMSA 
will address all comments (to the NPRM and SNPRM) as part of the final 
rulemaking.

V. Application of 49 CFR Part 195 Requirements

    This SNPRM extends all Part 195 requirements to rural low-stress 
pipelines that meet specific criteria with respect to size (8 \5/8\ 
inches or more in diameter), operating pressure (at or below 20 percent 
SMYS) and location relative to USAs (in or within a half-mile of a 
USA).
    Subpart A--General: This subpart addresses the scope and 
applicability of Part 195, the definition of terms used in the part, 
and related administrative matters. The NPRM proposed to revise Sec.  
195.1 of this part for clarity and to add Sec.  195.12 defining and 
specifying requirements applicable to regulated low-stress lines in 
rural areas.
    This SNPRM is not changing the proposed clarifications to Sec.  
195.1. We are revising the criteria proposed in Sec.  195.12 only to 
increase the size of the buffer around USAs from a quarter to a half-
mile, and to allow an option for

[[Page 28012]]

operators to use comprehensive spread analysis, in lieu of the 
specified buffer, to determine which portions of their pipeline can 
affect a USA. The spread analysis would apply only for purposes of the 
integrity management requirements of Sec.  195.452. As with the NPRM, 
this SNPRM only applies to those rural low-stress pipelines of 8 \5/8\ 
inches or greater in diameter and operating at or below 20 percent SMYS 
located within a prescribed buffer of a USA (now one-half mile) 
Extension of Part 195 to other rural low-stress pipelines will be 
addressed in a later rulemaking.
    Subpart B--Annual, Accident, and Safety-Related Condition 
Reporting: This subpart includes requirements for operators to submit 
certain data to PHMSA annually, to report accidents occurring on their 
pipelines, and to report significant conditions that can affect safety. 
The NPRM proposed to require that operators of those rural low-stress 
lines comply with all the reporting requirements in this subpart. This 
SNPRM proposes to extend Subpart B reporting requirements to operators 
of all currently unregulated low-stress pipelines, for the reasons 
described above. We are proposing to add a new Sec.  195.48 to Subpart 
B to clarify which pipelines are subject to these reporting 
requirements.
    Subpart C--Design Requirements, Subpart D--Construction, and 
Subpart E--Pressure Testing: These subparts ensure a minimum standard 
of integrity for all new, replaced, and relocated pipelines. These 
subparts are not related to operation and maintenance of existing 
pipelines. The NPRM proposed to require that new, replaced, and 
relocated rural low-stress pipelines meet the requirements of these 
subparts. This SNPRM does not change that proposal. A later rulemaking 
will address all other rural unregulated low-stress pipelines.
    Subpart F--Operation and Maintenance: This subpart includes 
requirements applicable to the operation and maintenance of pipelines, 
once constructed. The NPRM proposed to apply some sections of this 
subpart to those rural low-stress lines the NPRM proposed to regulate. 
These were Sec.  195.406, Maximum operating pressure; Sec.  195.410, 
Line markers; Sec.  195.440, Public Awareness; Sec.  195.442, Damage 
prevention program, and parts of Sec.  195.452, Pipeline Integrity 
Management. This SNPRM proposes to make all remaining sections of 
Subpart F applicable to these low-stress lines.
    With respect to pipeline integrity management, the NPRM proposed to 
apply requirements related to integrity management (proposed Sec.  
195.12(b)(10)) that represented a focused application of the 
requirements in Sec.  195.452. This focused approach on the threats 
most common to rural low-stress pipelines is no longer appropriate, 
given the PIPES Act mandate that low-stress pipelines be made subject 
to the same standards as other hazardous liquid pipelines. This SNPRM 
applies all requirements of Sec.  195.452 to affected rural low-stress 
pipelines (those meeting the specified criteria) without change, except 
for the notification provision described above, which allows limited 
relief upon notification of a decision to abandon. Operators of low-
stress pipelines currently subject to Part 195 appear not to have 
experienced significant economic hardship because of their complying 
with Part 195 requirements, including the integrity management 
requirements of Sec.  195.452. Operators have not requested waivers 
from compliance.
    During the February teleconference, PHMSA sought comments from 
THLPSSC members on this issue. Committee members did not believe that 
requiring compliance with all of Part 195 would cause economic or 
operational hardship for most operators of the rural low-stress lines 
covered in the first phase of the rulemaking.
    Based on the THLPSSC's comments and testimony operators gave during 
Congressional hearings in 2006, PHMSA believes that most operators of 
these unregulated low-stress lines already use Part 195 or American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard B31.4 as guidelines for 
their daily operations and maintenance. ASME Standard B31.4 is the 
industry standard for liquid pipelines and is substantially similar to 
Part 195. Thus, PHMSA believes that requiring compliance with Part 195 
will only slightly increase costs to meet the record keeping 
requirements, modify procedures, and meet the required operations and 
maintenance scheduled activities.
    Subpart G--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel: This subpart 
includes requirements applicable to the training and qualification of 
personnel who perform work on the pipeline. The NPRM proposed that 
operators of the affected rural low-stress pipelines demonstrate their 
compliance with this subpart by describing the processes used to 
determine qualification of persons performing operations and 
maintenance tasks. In accordance with the PIPES Act mandate to apply 
the same standards that apply to all other regulated pipelines, this 
SNPRM proposes that operators of the affected rural low-stress lines 
comply with all of Subpart G. Again, based on the THLPSSC's comments 
and operators' testimony, PHMSA expects that there will be minimal 
burden in complying with these requirements. Operators of other 
pipelines, including low-stress pipelines already regulated under Part 
195, have been subject to these requirements and have operator 
qualification programs that can be applied.
    Subpart H--Corrosion Control: This subpart includes requirements to 
prevent and mitigate corrosion damage of steel pipelines. The NPRM 
proposed to apply the requirements of this subpart and proposed a time 
frame ranging from 2 to 3 years following the effective date of the 
final rule for existing pipelines to comply. This SNPRM does not change 
the proposed requirements except for removing the proposal for 
continuous monitoring because it will be covered by the existing IM 
requirements for information analysis and continual evaluation.

VI. Compliance Time Frames

    The NPRM proposed a range of potential implementation timeframes 
for the various safety requirements, requested comment on their 
appropriateness, and stated that a final rule would require a 
completion period within the proposed ranges. The statutory mandate 
that DOT apply all requirements of Part 195 to low-stress pipelines 
affects these proposed timeframes. We are no longer proposing that 
individual safety requirements apply, but rather that all the 
requirements of Part 195 apply to the phase one covered pipelines.
    It will still be necessary for operators to identify the pipeline 
segments meeting the criteria in this SNPRM before they can modify 
their programs and make other changes to implement Part 195 
requirements. The NPRM proposed that this identification be completed 
within 6 to 12 months following the effective date of the final rule. 
In this SNPRM, PHMSA proposes the same time frame for segment 
identification. PHMSA is also proposing that operators comply with the 
reporting requirements of Subpart B within the same timeframe.
    We are proposing that all pipelines meeting the criteria in this 
SNPRM comply with all requirements of Part 195 within 12 months to 24 
months after a final rule, with certain exceptions. The NPRM proposed 
compliance time frames ranging from 12 months to 18 months. Because 
this SNPRM proposes compliance with all of Part 195, rather than a 
focused set of requirements, we have proposed a range

[[Page 28013]]

from 12 months to 24 months. We continue to propose a period of 24 
months to 36 months for an operator to implement Subpart H corrosion 
control requirements. These requirements may necessitate physical 
modification to the pipeline (e.g., installation of cathodic 
protection), which will require a longer period to implement. We seek 
comments on what would be the most appropriate period for compliance.
    We have revised the proposed timeframes for implementing IM 
requirements of Sec.  195.452. This SNPRM proposes that operators 
develop and implement an IM program within 12 months from a final rule, 
since that is the standard that was applied to pipelines covered by 
Sec.  195.452 when the IM regulations were issued. There were no major 
problems with this implementation time frame. As did the NPRM, this 
SNPRM proposes that IM baseline assessments be completed within a 
proposed period ranging between 60 months to 84 months. This proposal 
would further require that 50 percent of the baseline assessments be 
completed within a period ranging between 36 months to 48 months, 
beginning with the highest-risk pipe. This 50 percent requirement is 
consistent with the requirement imposed on pipelines that were 
originally subject to Sec.  195.452.
    We seek comment on the most appropriate time frames for compliance. 
As did the NPRM, PHMSA seeks comments and supporting documentation to 
address the effects of these proposed compliance periods. These 
comments should address cost, operational difficulties in complying, 
technology concerns, and other issues, such as time needed to secure 
necessary permits.

VII. Proposed Rule

    Proposed definition of rural low-stress pipelines to which Part 195 
requirements will apply: The NPRM defined ``regulated low-stress 
pipelines in rural areas'' and proposed requirements that would apply 
to this class of pipeline. With the PIPES Act mandate, the Part 195 
regulations will apply to all rural low-stress pipelines, although this 
is being done in phases. PHMSA concludes that it would be confusing to 
continue to use the term ``regulated rural low-stress pipelines'' when 
all rural low-stress pipelines will eventually be ``regulated.'' This 
SNPRM includes criteria defining which currently unregulated low-stress 
pipelines will become subject to Part 195, but no longer uses the term 
``regulated rural low-stress pipelines.''
    The criteria used in this SNPRM to specify the rural low-stress 
pipelines to which Part 195 requirements will apply are the same as 
those proposed in the NPRM, with two exceptions. The first exception is 
the NPRM included, as one of the criteria defining regulated rural low-
stress pipelines, the location of a pipeline in or within a quarter of 
a mile of a USA as defined in Sec.  195.6. This proposal increases this 
distance to a half-mile for reasons described above. In addition, the 
new criteria allow for use of comprehensive spread analysis for IM 
purposes to determine the precise area of pipeline that could affect a 
USA.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 195.1
    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed a rewrite of this section to clarify 
which lines are subject to Part 195, and which are exempt. The changes 
did not modify the intent or scope of any exceptions from Part 195's 
coverage. Instead, PHMSA intends to make the exceptions easier to read. 
Those changes have been retained in this SNPRM. Although not included 
in the regulations, operators of any rural low-stress pipelines are 
reminded of their statutory duty to provide pipeline location 
information to the National Pipeline Mapping System.
Section 195.12
    We have modified proposed Sec.  195.12 to define the criteria for 
those rural low-stress lines that we propose to regulate in phase one 
and to require that operators of these pipelines comply with all 
requirements of Part 195. This change is consistent with the PIPES Act 
mandate. We have eliminated the proposal for threat-focused Part 195 
requirements since compliance with all of Part 195 will now be required 
for the pipelines covered in phase one.
    We have modified proposed Sec.  195.12 to propose appropriate 
deadlines for identifying rural low-stress pipeline segments meeting 
the proposed criteria and for complying with Part 195 requirements. We 
have also revised this proposed section to provide for notification 
where an operator determines that the economic burden of implementing 
IM assessment requirements of Sec.  195.452 would cause the operator to 
abandon operation of its pipeline. This notification would be limited 
to pipelines serving production facilities and for which flow rates are 
too low to use in-line inspection tools. PHMSA would analyze the 
potential energy impact and safety issues associated with abandonment 
of the pipeline. We discuss this proposed notification provision above 
in section IV. PHMSA invites public comment on the adequacy of this 
approach and on the appropriate criteria it should use to structure a 
notification provision when compliance is not economically viable.
Section 195.48
    This section is added to extend the scope of Subpart B reporting 
requirements to include all rural low-stress pipelines.
Section 195.452(m)
    We propose to revise this section to include on-line entry as an 
option for sending notifications to PHMSA. This affects notifications 
required under Sec.  195.452 and the notifications proposed in this 
SNPRM. The Web site was developed after Sec.  195.452 was published. 
PHMSA has informed pipeline operators that they may submit 
notifications via the Web site and, if they do so, need not submit by 
mail or fax. This proposed revision conforms the regulation to current 
practice.

VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all 
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete 
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 
2000 (70 FR 19477) and at http://dms.dot.gov.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking is 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) received a copy of this proposal to review. This supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking also is significant under DOT regulatory 
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).
    PHMSA prepared a draft Regulatory Evaluation for this supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking and a copy is in the docket. The 
evaluation concludes that the benefits of this proposal are expected to 
exceed its costs. The expected benefits of this proposal will be 
approximately $41 million over 20 years using a 7 percent discount rate 
and $58 million over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate. These 
benefits are exclusively the result of reduced incident consequences. 
The expected costs of this proposal will be approximately $24 million 
over 20 years using a 7 percent discount rate and $34 million over 20 
years using a 3 percent discount rate. Benefits exceed costs and

[[Page 28014]]

the proposed rule is expected to be cost-beneficial. At the 7 percent 
discount rate, the net benefits (excess of benefits over costs) are 
estimated to be approximately $18 million and at the 3 percent discount 
rate the net benefits are expected to be approximately $24 million. The 
change from the NPRM's proposal that the pipeline be located in or 
within a quarter-mile of a USA to the SNPRM ``s proposal that a 
pipeline be located in or within a half-mile of a USA would add an 
estimated 803 miles of regulated low-stress pipeline. In addition, an 
estimated additional 3,921 miles of rural low-stress pipeline would be 
brought under the subpart B reporting requirements for annual, 
accident, and safety-related condition reporting with PHMSA. PHMSA 
expects the costs of this required reporting to be nominal. Most of 
those costs would likely be incurred only when a reportable accident 
has occurred or a safety-related condition has been discovered. The 
primary benefit of this requirement is that it would provide PHMSA with 
information about low-stress pipelines that can be used to quickly 
identify and evaluate problems, should they arise. This SNPRM provides 
relief through notification in the rare cases where operators cannot 
comply with the integrity management assessment requirements because 
the economic burden would be too great. This will have the benefit of 
allowing pipelines serving marginal wells to continue operation. This 
SNPRM would result in minimal economic burden to operators of any size. 
PHMSA invites comments on the draft regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA 
must consider whether rulemaking actions would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
information PHMSA compiled for phase one does not indicate the number 
of operators with rural low-stress pipeline that would be covered by 
this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. Nevertheless, this 
information shows that this proposal will affect mostly major pipeline 
operators, and very few small entities. Consequently, PHMSA does not 
believe that this proposal will have a substantial impact on a 
significant number of small entities. PHMSA invites comments on the 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA has analyzed this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
according to the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 
13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments.'' Because this proposal would not significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or 
impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and 
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking applies the 
existing information collection requirements in Subpart B for annual, 
accident, and safety-related condition reports to all rural low-stress 
pipeline operators. Operators of low-stress pipelines that currently 
are not required to follow Part 195 will take an estimated 4,201 burden 
hours to comply with the paperwork requirements during the first year 
and 1,069 burden hours in every year thereafter because of this SNPRM. 
The calculations are based on 35 operators with 4,724 miles of 
previously unregulated rural low-stress pipeline. This mileage includes 
803 miles of low-stress pipeline within a half-mile of a USA and an 
estimated additional 3,921 miles of rural low-stress pipeline that 
would be subject only to subpart B reporting requirements. These burden 
hour estimates are based on data for currently regulated pipelines.
    The associated cost of these annual burden hours is $207,425 in the 
first year and $52,745 in every year thereafter. Most of the burden 
hours will be generated by the operators who were not previously 
regulated. For those operators that currently have regulated pipelines 
under Part 195 and are required including the additional mileage 
addressed in this SNPRM, the associated burden hour increase will be 
minimal. (See the accompanying Paperwork Reduction Act analysis for a 
more detailed explanation.) As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), PHMSA submitted a separate paperwork 
analysis to the Office of Management and Budget to revise the existing 
approved collection. PHMSA also seeks comments on these estimates.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking does not impose 
unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It 
does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objective of this proposal.

National Environmental Policy Act

    PHMSA has analyzed this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.). PHMSA has preliminarily determined that this proposal is 
unlikely to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 
This proposal would require only limited physical modification or other 
work that would disturb pipeline rights-of-way resulting in negligible 
to minor negative environmental impacts from activities such as 
installing and maintaining line markers and implementing corrosion 
controls. Based on comments from the advisory committee and testimony 
operators gave during Congressional hearings in 2006, 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 this proposal. Furthermore, by 
requiring activities such as accident reporting, implementing public 
awareness and damage prevention programs, and establishing operator 
qualification programs, it is likely the number of spills on rural 
onshore low-stress lines will be reduced, resulting in minor to 
moderate positive environmental impacts that would offset the negative 
environmental effects. An environmental assessment document is in the 
docket. A final determination on environmental impact will be made 
after the end of the comment period.

Executive Order 13132

    PHMSA has analyzed this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 
13132 (``Federalism''). This proposal does not (1) have 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) impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or 
(3) preempt state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Executive Order 13211

    This supplemental notice of 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,

[[Page 28015]]

distribution, or use of energy. Further, this proposal has not been 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

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 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 195.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.1  Which pipelines are covered by this part?

    (a) Covered. Except for the pipelines listed in paragraph (b) 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). 
This includes:
    (1) Any pipeline that transports a highly volatile liquid (HVL);
    (2) Transportation through any pipeline, other than a gathering 
line, that has a 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 Sec.  195.11. 
The requirements for these lines are provided in Sec.  195.11;\3\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the September 6, 2006 NPRM (71 FR 52504) for the 
proposed text of Sec.  195.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) A pipeline located in an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico. These 
lines are only subject to the requirements in Sec.  195.413;
    (5) Transportation of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide through 
a low-stress pipeline or segment of pipeline that:
    (i) Is in a non-rural area; or
    (ii) As of [effective date of final rule] meets the criteria 
defined in Sec.  195.12(a).
    (6) For purposes of the reporting requirements in Subpart B, a 
rural low-stress pipeline of any diameter.
    (b) Excepted. 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 one 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 Sec.  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.
    (c) Breakout tanks. 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 Sec. Sec.  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. Add Sec.  195.12 to read as follows:

Sec.  195.12  What requirements apply to low-stress pipelines in rural 
areas?

    (a) General. This section does not apply to a rural low-stress 
pipeline regulated under this part as a low-stress pipeline that 
crosses a waterway currently used for commercial navigation. An 
operator of a rural low-stress pipeline meeting the following criteria 
must comply with the safety requirements described in paragraph (b) of 
this section. The pipeline:
    (1) Has a nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches (219.1 mm) or more;
    (2) Is located in or within \1/2\-mile (.80 km) of an unusually 
sensitive area (USA) as defined in Sec.  195.6; and
    (3) Operates at a maximum pressure established under Sec.  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) Requirements. An operator of a pipeline meeting the criteria in

[[Page 28016]]

paragraph (a) of this section must comply with the following safety 
requirements and compliance deadlines.
    (1) Identify all segments of pipelines meeting the criteria and 
comply with the reporting requirements of Subpart B for these segments 
before [6-12 months following effective date of final rule]. To carry 
out the integrity management requirements in Sec.  195.452, an operator 
may conduct a determination per Sec.  195.452(a) in lieu of the \1/2\ 
mile buffer.
    (2)(i) Establish and apply a program in accordance with Sec.  
195.452 to assure the integrity of the low-stress pipeline segments 
before [12 months following effective date of final rule].
    (ii) Complete the baseline assessment of all segments in accordance 
with Sec.  195.452(c) not later than [60 months-84 months following the 
effective date of final rule] and complete at least 50 percent of the 
assessments, beginning with the highest risk pipe, not later than [30 
months-48 months following the effective date of final rule].
    (3) Comply with all other safety requirements of this part, except 
Subpart H, before [12 months-24 months following effective date of 
final rule]. Comply with Subpart H before [24 months-36 months 
following effective date of final rule].
    (c) Economic compliance burden. (1) An operator may notify PHMSA in 
accordance with Sec.  195.452(m) of situations meeting the following 
criteria:
    (i) The pipeline meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this 
section;
    (ii) The pipeline carries crude oil from a production facility;
    (iii) The pipeline, when in operation, operates at a flow rate less 
than or equal to 14,000 barrels per day; and
    (iv) The operator determines it would abandon or shut-in the 
pipeline as a result of the economic burden to comply with the 
assessment requirements in Sec. Sec.  195.452(d) or (j).
    (2) When an operator notifies PHMSA in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, PHMSA will stay compliance with Sec. Sec.  
195.452(d) and 195.452 (j)(3) until it has completed an analysis of the 
notification. PHMSA will consult the Department of Energy (DOE), as 
appropriate, to help analyze the potential energy impact of loss of the 
pipeline. Based on the analysis, PHMSA may grant the operator a special 
permit to allow continued operation of the line while also assuring 
safety through alternative safety requirements.
    (d) New USAs. If, after [effective date of final rule], an operator 
identifies a new unusually sensitive area and a segment of pipeline 
meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, the operator must 
take the following actions:
    (1) Except for paragraph (b)(2) of this section, implement the 
requirements of this part, within [6 months-1 year following the 
effective date of final rule] from the date the area is identified;
    (2) Establish and apply the program required in paragraph (b)(2)(i) 
within 12 months following the date the area is identified; and
    (3) Complete the baseline assessment required by paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section according to the schedule in Sec.  
195.452(d)(3).
    4. Add Sec.  195.48 in Subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  195.48  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes requirements for periodic reporting and for 
reporting of accidents and safety-related conditions. This subpart 
applies to all pipelines subject to this part and, beginning [6-9 
months following the effective date of final rule], applies to all 
rural low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines.
    5. Revise 195.452(m) to read as follows:

Sec.  195.452  Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.

* * * * *
    (m) How does an operator notify PHMSA? An operator must provide any 
notification required by this section by:
    (1) Entering the information directly on the Integrity Management 
Database Web site at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/imdb/;
    (2) Sending the notification to the Information Resources Manager, 
Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; or
    (3) Sending the notification to the Information Resources Manager 
by facsimile to (202) 366-7128.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 15, 2007.
William H. Gute,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 07-2461 Filed 5-15-07; 12:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
```