28008 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1For 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. 2The NPRM also proposed to apply threatfocused Part 195 safety requirements to rural 

in this Notice at least two weeks before 

the scheduled meeting date. Although, 

we will attempt to meet a request we 

receive after that date, we may not be 

able to make available the requested 

auxiliary aid or service because of 

insufficient time to arrange it. 

Background 

On December 3, 2004, the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education 

Improvement Act of 2004 was enacted 

into law as Pub L. 108–446. Copies of 

the new law may be obtained at the 

following Web site: http://edworkforce. 

Enactment of the new law provides an 

opportunity to consider improvements 

in the regulations implementing Part C 

of the IDEA that would strengthen the 

Federal effort to increase flexibility for, 

and to require accountability of, States 

in their provision of early intervention 

services to infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families. The Part 

C NPRM was published May 9, 2007 in 

the Federal Register. 

Announcement of Public Meetings 

The Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services will be holding a 

series of public meetings during June 

2007. This notice provides specific 

information about dates, locations, and 

times of these meetings (see ADDRESSES

earlier in this Notice). 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You may view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: May 14, 2007. 

John H. Hager, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. E7–9566 Filed 5–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

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 LowStress 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 selfaddressed 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 Lane.Miller@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

PHMSA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 

September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52504) 

proposing to extend certain threatfocused pipeline safety regulations to 

rural onshore low-stress hazardous 

liquid pipelines within a prescribed 

buffer of previously defined USAs. Lowstress 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. 

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 85⁄8 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28009 

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. 

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. 

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 nonregulated 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 lowstress 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 85⁄8 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 85⁄8 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 largediameter 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 85⁄8 inches 

in diameter as well as the total mileage 

of low-stress pipelines currently in 

service. 

To better understand the rural lowstress 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28010 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

85⁄8 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 onehalf 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 halfmile 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 § 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 lowstress pipelines before PHMSA 

addresses it for other pipelines. The 

Committee suggested PHMSA should 

instead apply the existing leak detection 

capabilities requirement in § 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 §§ 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 § 195.452 IM 

requirements, the proposed 

‘‘continuously monitor’’ requirement 

would be redundant with the 

requirements for information analysis in 

§ 195.452(g) and continual evaluation in 

§ 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 inline 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 halfmile 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 

§ 195.1 of this part for clarity and to add 

§ 195.12 defining and specifying 

requirements applicable to regulated 

low-stress lines in rural areas. 

This SNPRM is not changing the 

proposed clarifications to § 195.1. We 

are revising the criteria proposed in 

§ 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28012 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 lowstress 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 § 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 

§ 195.406, Maximum operating pressure; 

§ 195.410, Line markers; § 195.440, 

Public Awareness; § 195.442, Damage 

prevention program, and parts of 

§ 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 § 195.12(b)(10)) 

that represented a focused application 

of the requirements in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 195.12 

to define the criteria for those rural lowstress 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 § 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 § 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 lowstress 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 

§ 195.452 and the notifications proposed 

in this SNPRM. The Web site was 

developed after § 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28014 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the proposed rule is expected to be costbeneficial. 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 lowstress 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 lowstress 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, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28015 

3See the September 6, 2006 NPRM (71 FR 52504) 

for the proposed text of § 195.11. 

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: 

§ 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 § 195.11. The 

requirements for these lines are 

provided in § 195.11;3 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 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 § 195.12(a). 

(6) For purposes of the reporting 

requirements in Subpart B, a rural lowstress 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 195.12 to read as follows: 

§ 195.12 What requirements apply to lowstress 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 lowstress 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 

85⁄8 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 § 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) Requirements. An operator of a 

pipeline meeting the criteria in 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 96 / Friday, May 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 195.452, an operator 

may conduct a determination per 

§ 195.452(a) in lieu of the 1⁄2 mile buffer. 

(2)(i) Establish and apply a program in 

accordance with § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 195.452(d)(3). 

4. Add § 195.48 in Subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU74 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Hine’s Emerald 

Dragonfly 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

for the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the endangered Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana) and the draft economic 

analysis, under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are 

reopening the public comment period to 

allow additional time for all interested 

parties to comment on the proposed 

rule, our revision to the proposed rule, 

and the associated draft economic 

analysis. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted, as 

we will incorporate them into the public 

record and fully consider them as we 

prepare the final rule. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

until July 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

information concerning this proposal, 

identified by ‘‘Attn: Hine’s Emerald 

Dragonfly Critical Habitat,’’ by any one 

of several methods: 

(1) Mail or hand-deliver to: John 

Rogner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Chicago Ecological 

Services Field Office, 1250 S. Grove, 

Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010. 

(2) Send by electronic mail (e-mail) to 

hedch@fws.gov. Please see the Public 

Comments Solicited section below for 

file format and other information about 

electronic filing. 

(3) Fax your comments to: (847) 381–

2285. 

(4) Submit comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Rogner, Field Supervisor, Chicago 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1250 S. 

Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010 

(telephone (847) 381–2253, extension 

28; facsimile (847) 381–2285). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS