        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Parts 195
        [Docket No. RSPA-00-7408; Notice 1]
        RIN 2137-AD49
        Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines)

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule extends the requirements for protection of populated areas, commercially navigable waterways, and areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage from hazardous liquid pipeline spills to those regulated hazardous liquid pipeline operators who own or operate less than 500 miles of pipeline. This action is necessary because on December 01, 2000, RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued a final rule to establish new requirements for the protection of these areas. However, the published final rule applied only to hazardous liquid pipeline operators who own or operate 500 or more miles of pipeline. After further review, it was determined that the same requirements should be extended to the remaining regulated hazardous liquid pipeline operators.

          DATES:
          Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by May 21, 2001. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit written comments by mail or delivery to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. It is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. You also may submit written comments to the docket electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional filing information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mike Israni by phone at (202) 366-4571, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by e-mail at mike.israni@rspa.dot.gov, regarding the subject matter of this proposed rule. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional filing information.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Filing Information, Electronic Access and General Program Information.

        To submit comments electronically, log on to the following Internet Web address: http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” for instructions on how to file a document electronically. All written comments should identify the docket and notice numbers stated in the heading of this notice. Anyone desiring confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard.

        You may contact the Dockets Facility by phone at (202) 366-9329, for copies of this proposed rule or other material in the docket. All materials in this docket may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov. General information about the RSPA Office of Pipeline Safety programs may be obtained by accessing OPS's Internet page at http://ops.dot.gov.

        Background
        On December 1, 2000, OPS published a final rule (65 FR 75378) that imposed pipeline integrity management program requirements on hazardous liquid operators that own or operate 500 or more miles of pipeline. The requirements apply to those hazardous liquid pipeline owners and operators with pipelines that could affect areas we defined as high consequence areas—populated areas, areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage, and commercially navigable waterways.
        The final rule was the first in a series of rulemakings that require all regulated pipeline operators to have integrity management programs. OPS chose to start the series with hazardous liquid operators who own or operate 500 or more miles of pipelines because the pipelines they operate have the greatest potential to adversely affect the environment, based on the volume of product these pipelines transport. By focusing first on those liquid operators, OPS addressed requirements for an estimated 86.7 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines.
        In the NPRM and final rule for operators with 500 or more miles of pipeline, we explained that we needed to gather more information about smaller liquid operations before proposing integrity management program requirements for operators operating less than 500 miles of pipeline. We further stated that proposed regulatory requirements for all the remaining regulated hazardous liquid and gas operators would soon follow.
        Information that we collected revealed that many owners and operators of less than 500 miles of pipelines are to a large extent, companies with sufficient capabilities and resources, and are able to handle the same requirements imposed on operators of 500 miles or more of pipeline. These operators are well known names in the oil industry and are big utilities who also own or operate tank farms, terminals or production facilities. Such pipelines and facilities are mostly in the urban areas. The information gathered also revealed that more than 50% of such pipelines are capable of accommodating internal inspection devices and that operators of these pipelines have used internal inspection devices in the past. Furthermore, in discussions with some of the operators who operate less than 500 miles of pipeline, they indicated that they have capabilities and resources to meet the integrity management requirements proposed in this rulemaking.
        This proposed rule covers the remaining 13.3 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines. It is estimated that approximately 5,440 miles of pipeline (of the 157,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline in the U.S.) will be impacted by this proposed rule.
        As stated in the final rule for liquid operators with 500 and more miles of pipelines (65 FR 75378; December 1, 2000), many commenters, including NTSB, EPA, API, liquid operators and environmental advocacy groups, emphasized that the same requirements must apply to all the hazardous liquid pipeline operators regardless of the total mileage that they operate. Based on the information we have collected and comments we received, we have decided to propose the same requirements for operators with less than 500 miles of pipelines as RSPA required for operators with 500 or more miles of pipelines. The sole difference is in compliance dates which are linked to the effective date of this final rule. If comments to this proposed rule cause RSPA to impose different requirements on those regulated operators with less than 500 miles of pipelines, we will distinguish those requirements in the final rule.
        See the final rule for hazardous liquid pipeline operators with 500 or more miles of pipeline (65 FR 75378; December 1, 2000) for all of the background and analysis on the subject matter.
        The Proposed Rule

        The proposed rule extends to regulated hazardous liquid pipeline operators with less than 500 miles of pipeline, all of the same requirements imposed on the hazardous liquid pipeline operators with 500 or more miles of pipeline, as in the December 1, 2000 final rule. However, because this proposed rule, and thus the eventual final rule, will be published at a later date, the compliance dates in this proposed rule will be accordingly shifted to give the operators with less than 500 miles of pipeline the same amount of time to comply with the requirements.
        The December 1, 2000 final rule proposed repair criteria that may be changed based on comments. Any changes to that proposal will also be reflected in the final rule to this action.
        Please refer to 65 FR 75378 for a discussion of all the proposed requirements.
        Regulatory Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        The Department of Transportation (DOT) considers this action to be a non-significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4,1993). Therefore, it was not forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is non-significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
        On December 01, 2000, RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued a final rule to establish new requirements for additional protection of populated areas, commercially navigable waterways, and areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage from hazardous liquid pipeline spills. The published final rule applies to hazardous liquid pipeline operators who own or operate 500 or more miles of pipeline. Through this document, OPS is proposing to extend the same requirements to the remaining regulated hazardous liquid pipelines.
        A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation has been placed in the docket for this proposed rule. The following section summarizes the draft regulatory evaluation's findings.
        Hazardous liquid pipeline spills can adversely affect human health and the environment. However, the magnitude of this impact differs from area to area. There are some areas in which the impact of a spill will be more significant than it would be in others due to concentrations of people who could be affected or to the presence of environmental resources that are unusually sensitive to damage. Because of the potential for dire consequences of pipeline failures in certain areas, these areas merit a higher level of protection. OPS is proposing this regulation to afford the necessary additional protection to these high consequence areas.
        Numerous investigations by OPS and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have highlighted the importance of protecting the public and environmentally sensitive areas from pipeline failures. NTSB has made several recommendations to ensure the integrity of pipelines near populated and environmentally sensitive areas. These recommendations included requiring periodic testing and inspection to identify corrosion and other damage, establishing criteria to determine appropriate intervals for inspections and tests, determining hazards to public safety from electric resistance welded pipe and requiring installation of automatic or remotely-operated mainline valves on high-pressure lines to provide for rapid shutdown of failed pipelines.
        Congress also directed OPS to undertake additional safety measures in areas that are densely populated or unusually sensitive to environmental damage. These statutory requirements included having OPS prescribe standards for identifying pipelines in high density population areas, unusually sensitive environmental areas, and commercially navigable waters; issue standards requiring periodic inspections using internal inspection devices on pipelines in densely-populated and environmentally sensitive areas; and survey and assess the effectiveness of emergency flow restricting devices, and prescribe regulations on circumstances where an operator must use the devices.
        This proposed rulemaking addresses the target problem described above, and is a comprehensive approach to certain NTSB recommendations and Congressional mandates, as well as pipeline safety and environmental issues raised over the years.
        This proposed rule focuses on a systematic approach to integrity management to reduce the potential for hazardous liquid pipeline failures that could affect populated and unusually sensitive environmental areas, and commercially navigable waterways. This proposed rulemaking requires pipeline operators to develop and follow an integrity management program that continually assesses, through internal inspection, pressure testing, or equivalent alternative technology, the integrity of those pipeline segments that could affect areas we have defined as high consequence areas i.e., populated areas, areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage, and commercially navigable waterways. The program must also evaluate the segments through comprehensive information analysis, remediate integrity problems and provide additional protection through preventive and mitigative measures.
        This proposed rule (the second in a series of integrity management program regulations) covers hazardous liquid pipeline operators that own or operate less than 500 miles of pipeline used in transportation. OPS intends to soon propose integrity management program requirements for natural gas transmission operators. OPS chose to start the series with hazardous liquid operators who own or operate 500 or more miles of pipelines because the pipelines they operate have the greatest potential to adversely affect the environment, based on the volume of product these pipelines transport. Further, by focusing first on those liquid operators, OPS addressed requirements for an estimated 86.7 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines. This proposed rule covers the remaining 13.3 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines. It is estimated that approximately 5,440 miles (of the 157,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline in the U.S.) will be impacted by this proposed rule.
        We have estimated the cost to develop the necessary program at approximately $9.64 million, with an additional annual cost for program upkeep and reporting of $1.8 million. An operator's program begins with a baseline assessment plan and a framework that addresses each required program element. The framework indicates how decisions will be made to implement each element. As decisions are made and operators evaluate the effectiveness of the program in protecting high consequence areas, the program will be updated and improved, as needed.

        The proposed rule requires a baseline assessment of covered pipeline segments through internal inspection, pressure test, or use of other technology capable of equivalent performance. The baseline assessment must be completed within seven years after the final rule becomes effective. After this baseline assessment, the rule further proposes that an operator be required to periodically re-assess and evaluate the pipeline segment to ensure its integrity within a five year interval. It is estimated that the cost of periodic reassessment will generally not occur until the sixth year unless the baseline assessment indicates significant defects that would require earlier reassessment. Integrating information related to the pipeline's integrity is a key element of the integrity management program. Costs will be incurred in realigning existing data systems to permit integration and in analysis of the integrated data by knowledgeable pipeline safety professionals. The total costs for the information integration requirements in this proposed rule are $6.4 million in the first year and $3.2 million annually thereafter.
        The proposed rule requires operators to identify and take preventive or mitigative measures that would enhance public safety or environmental protection based on a risk analysis of the pipeline segment. One of the many preventive or mitigative actions that the notice proposes that an operator may take is to install an EFRD on the pipeline segment, as determined necessary. OPS could not estimate the total cost of installing EFRDs because OPS does not know how many operators will install them. Additionally, requirements have been proposed for an operator to evaluate its leak detection capability and modify that capability, if necessary. OPS does not know how many operators currently have leak detection systems or how many will be installed or upgraded as a result of this proposed rule. OPS was therefore also unable to estimate the total costs of the proposed leak detection requirements.
        Affected operators will be required to assess more line pipe in segments that could affect high consequence areas as a result of this proposed rule than they would have been expected to assess if the proposed rule had not been issued. Integrity assessment consists of a baseline assessment, to be conducted over the first seven years after the effective date of the final rule, and subsequent re-assessment at intervals not to exceed every five years.
        OPS has estimated the annual cost of additional baseline assessment that will be required by this proposed rule as $377 thousand annually. The cost for additional re-assessment that will be required to meet the five-year re-assessment requirement is also $377 thousand per year. Cost impact will be greater in the sixth and seventh years after the effective date of the final rule due to an overlap between baseline inspection and the initial subsequent testing. The additional costs in these two years are estimated at $5.26 million. The subsequent cost of testing will be $531 thousand every year thereafter.
        The benefits of this proposed rule can not easily be quantified but can be described in qualitative terms. Issuance of this proposed rule ensures that all operators will perform at least to a baseline safety level and will contribute to an overall higher level of safety and environmental performance nationwide. It will lead to greater uniformity in how risk is evaluated and addressed and will provide more clarity in discussion by government, industry and the public about safety and environmental concerns and how they can be resolved.
        Much of the proposed rule is written in performance-based language. A performance-based approach provides several advantages: encouraging development and use of new technologies; supporting operators' development of more formal, structured risk evaluation programs and OPS's evaluation of the programs; and providing greater ability for operators to customize their long-term maintenance programs.
        The proposed rule has also stimulated the pipeline industry to begin developing a supplemental consensus standard to support risk-based approaches to integrity management. The proposed rule has further fostered development of industry-wide technical standards, such as repair criteria to use following an internal inspection.
        Our emphasis on an integrity-based approach encourages a balanced program, addressing the range of prevention and mitigation needs and avoiding reliance on any single tool or overemphasis on any single cause of failure. This orientation will lead to addressing the most significant risks in populated areas, unusually sensitive environmental areas, and commercially navigable waterways. This integrity-based approach provides a good opportunity to improve industry performance and assure that these high consequence areas get the protection they need. It also addresses the interrelationships among different causes of failure, and aids in the coordination of risk control actions, beyond what a solely compliance-based approach would achieve.
        The proposed rule provides for a verification process, which gives the regulator a better opportunity to influence the methods of assessment and the interpretation of results. OPS will provide a beneficial challenge to the adequacy of an operator's decision process. Requiring operators to use the integrity management process, and having regulators validate the adequacy and implementation of this process, should expedite the operators' rates of remedial action, thereby strengthening the pipeline system and reducing the public's exposure to risk.
        A particularly significant benefit is the quality of information that will be gathered as a result of this proposal to aid operators' decisions about providing additional protections. Two essential elements of the integrity management program are that an operator continually assess and evaluate the pipeline's integrity, and perform an analysis that integrates all available information about the pipeline's integrity. The process of planning, assessment and evaluation will provide operators with better data on which to judge a pipeline's condition and the location of potential problems that must be addressed.
        Integrating this data with the environmental and safety concerns associated with high consequence areas will help prompt operators and the Federal and state governments to focus time and resources on potential risks and consequences that require greater scrutiny and the need for more intensive preventive and mitigation measures. If baseline and periodic assessment data is not evaluated in the proper context, it is of little or no value. It is imperative that the information an operator gathers is assessed in a systematic way as part of the operator's ongoing examination of all threats to the pipeline integrity. The proposed rule is intended to accomplish that.
        The public has expressed concern about the danger hazardous liquid pipelines may pose to their neighborhoods. The integrity management process leads to greater accountability to the public for both the operator and the regulator. This accountability is enhanced through our choice of a map-based approach to defining the areas most in need of additional protection—the visual depiction of the populated areas, unusually sensitive environmental areas, and commercially navigable waterways in need of protection focuses on the safety and environmental issues in a manner that will be easily understandable to everyone. The system integrity requirements and the sharing of information about their implementation and effectiveness will assure the public that operators are continually inspecting and evaluating the threats to pipelines that pass through or close to populated areas to better ensure that the pipelines are safe.

        OPS has not provided quantitative benefits for the continual integrity management evaluation required in this proposed rule. OPS does not believe, however, that requiring this comprehensive process, including the re-assessment of pipelines in high consequence areas at a minimum of once every five years, will be an undue burden on hazardous liquid operators covered by this proposal. OPS believes the added security this assessment will provide and the generally expedited rate of strengthening the pipeline system in populated and important environmental areas and commercially navigable waterways, is benefit enough to promulgate these requirements.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). OPS must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rulemaking was designed to impact only those hazardous liquid operators that own or operate less than 500 miles of pipeline. Because of this limitation on pipeline mileage, only 128 hazardous liquid pipeline operators (large national energy companies) covering 13.3 percent of regulated liquid transmission lines are impacted by this proposed rule.
        The costs of the testing are proportionate to the number of miles of hazardous liquid pipeline that an operator owns or operates. The testing costs and the planning costs should be a function of the length of the pipeline. Information that we collected revealed that many owners and operators of less than 500 miles of pipelines are to a large extent, companies with sufficient capabilities and resources, and are able to handle the same requirements imposed on operators of 500 miles or more of pipeline. These operators are well known names in the oil industry and are big utilities who also own or operate tank farms, terminals or production facilities. The information gathered also revealed that more than 50% of such pipelines are capable of accommodating internal inspection devices and that operators of these pipelines have used internal inspection devices in the past. Based on this, and the evidence discussed above, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed rule contains information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Transportation has submitted a copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis to the Office of Management and Budget for its review. The name of the information collection is “Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas for Operators with less than 500 miles of pipeline.” The purpose of this information collection is designed to require operators of hazardous liquid pipelines to develop a program to provide direct integrity testing and evaluation of hazardous liquid pipelines in high consequence areas.
        One hundred and twenty-eight (128) hazardous liquid operators will be subject to this proposed rule. It is estimated that those operators will have to develop integrity management programs taking approximately 2,800 hours per program. Each of the operators would also have to devote 1,000 hours in the first year to integrate this data into current management information systems.
        Additionally, under the proposals, operators would have to update their programs on a continual basis. This will take approximately 330 hours per program annually. An additional 500 hours per operator will be needed for the proposed requirement to annually integrate the data into the operator's current management information systems.
        Under the proposal, operators could use either hydrostatic testing or an internal inspection tool as a method to assess their pipelines. However, operators could use another technology if they could demonstrate it provides an equivalent understanding of the condition of the line pipe as the other two assessment methods. Operators have to provide OPS 90-days notice (by mail or facsimile) before using the other technology. OPS believes that few operators will choose this option. If they do choose an alternate technology, notice preparation should take approximately one hour. Because OPS believes few if any operators will elect to use other technologies, the burden was considered minimal and therefore not calculated.
        Additionally, the proposed rule allows operators to seek a variance in limited situations from the required five-year continual re-assessment interval if they can provide the necessary justification and supporting documentation. Notice would have to be provided to OPS when an operator seeks a variance. OPS believes that approximately 10% of operators may request a variance. This is approximately 13 operators. The advance notification can be in the form of letter or fax. OPS believes the burden of a letter or fax is minimal and therefore did not add it to the overall burden hours discussed above.

        Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection should direct them to U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by e-mail to www.dms.dot.gov. Please provide the docket number of this proposal. Comments must be sent within 60 days of the publication of this proposed rule.
        The Office of Management and Budget is specifically interested in the following issues concerning the information collection:

          1. Evaluating whether the collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information would have a practical use;
          2. Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of assumptions used;
          3. Enhancing the quality, usefulness and clarity of the information to be collected; and minimizing the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

        According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless a valid OMB control number is displayed. The valid OMB control number for this information collection will be published in the Federal Register after it is approved by the OMB. For more details, see the Paperwork Reduction Analysis available for copying and review in the public docket.
        Executive Order 13084
        This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
        Executive Order 13132
        This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This proposed rule does not adopt any regulation that:
        (1) Has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government;
        (2) Imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments; or
        (3) Preempts state law.

        Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) do not apply. Nevertheless, in a November 18-19, 1999 public meeting, OPS invited National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), which includes State pipeline safety regulators, to participate in a general discussion on pipeline integrity. Again in January, and February 2000, OPS held conference calls with NAPSR, to receive their input before proposing an integrity management rule.
        Unfunded Mandates
        This proposed rule 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 the proposed rule.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        We have analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Section 4332), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR sections 1500-1508), and DOT Order 5610.1D, and have preliminarily determined that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
        The Environmental Assessment (available in the Docket) determined that the combined impacts of the initial baseline assessment (pressure testing or internal inspection), the subsequent periodic assessments, and additional preventive and mitigative measures that may be implemented to protect high consequence areas will result in positive environmental impacts. The number of incidents and the environmental damage from failures in and near high consequence areas are likely to be reduced. However, from a national perspective, the impact is not expected to be significant for the pipeline operators covered by the proposed rule. The following discussion summarizes the analysis provided in the Environmental Assessment.
        Many operators covered by the proposed rule (those operating less than 500 miles of pipeline) already have internal inspection and pressure testing programs that cover most, if not all, of their pipeline systems. These operators typically place a high priority on the pipeline's proximity to populated areas, commercially navigable waterways, and environmental resources when making decisions about where and when to inspect and test pipelines. As a result, some high consequence areas have already been recently assessed, and a large fraction of remaining locations would probably have been assessed in the next several years without the provisions of the proposed rule. The most tangible impact of the proposed rule will be to ensure assessments are performed for those line segments that could affect a high consequence area that are not currently being internally inspected or pressure tested, and ensuring that integrity is maintained through an integrity management program that requires periodic assessments in these locations. Because pipeline failure rates are low, and because the total pipeline mileage operated by operators with less than 500 miles of pipeline that could affect high consequence areas is small (estimated to be approximately 5440 miles), the proposed rule has only a small effect on the likelihood of pipeline failure in these locations.
        The proposed rule will result in more frequent integrity assessments of line segments that could affect high consequence areas than most operators are currently conducting (due to the five year interval required for periodic assessment). However, if the operator identifies and repairs significant problems discovered during the baseline inspection, and has in place solid risk controls to prevent corrosion and other threats (as required by the proposed rule), the benefits of testing every five years versus the longer intervals operators more typically employ are not expected to be significant.
        The proposed rule requires operators to conduct an integrated evaluation of all potential threats to pipeline integrity, and to consider and take preventive or mitigative risk control measures to provide enhanced protection. If there is a vulnerability to a particular failure cause—like third party damage—these evaluations should identify additional risk controls to address these threats. Some of the liquid operators covered by the proposed rule already perform integrity evaluations or formal risk assessments that consider the environmental sensitivity and impacts on population. These evaluations have already led to additional risk controls beyond existing requirements to improve protection for these locations. For these operators, it is expected that additional risk controls will be limited and customized to site-specific conditions that the operator may not have previously recognized.
        Finally, an important, although less tangible, benefit of the proposed rule will be to establish requirements for operator integrity management programs that assure a more comprehensive and integrated evaluation of pipeline system integrity in high consequence areas. In effect, this will codify and bring an appropriate level of uniformity to the integrity management programs some operators are currently implementing. It will also require operators who have limited, or no, integrity management programs to raise their level of performance. Thus, the proposed rule is expected to provide a more consistent, and overall, a higher level of protection for high consequence areas across the industry.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
          Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, OPS proposes to amend part 195 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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.

            Subpart F—Operation and Maintenance

          2. Amend § 195.452 to revise paragraphs (a), (b), (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(1)(i), (d)(1), (d)(2) and (h)(3) to read as follows:

            § 195.452
            Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
            (a) Which operators must comply? This section applies to each operator covered by this part.
            (b) What must an operator do? (1) An operator must develop a written integrity management program that addresses the risks on each pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area. For an operator who owns or operates a total of 500 or more miles of pipeline, this program must be developed no later than March 31, 2002. For an operator who owns or operates less than 500 miles of pipeline, this program must be developed no later than (one year after the effective date of the final rule). An operator must include in the program:

            (i) An identification of all pipeline segments that could affect a high consequence area. A pipeline segment in a high consequence area is presumed to affect that area unless the operator's risk assessment effectively demonstrates otherwise. (See Appendix C of this part for guidance on identifying pipeline segments.) For an operator who owns or operates a total of 500 or more miles of pipeline, the identification must be completed no later than December 31, 2001. For an operator who owns or operates less than 500 miles of pipeline, the identification must be completed no later than (nine months after the effective date of the final rule).

            (d) When must the baseline assessment be completed?

            (1) Time period. An operator must establish a baseline assessment schedule to determine the priority for assessing the pipeline segments. For an operator who owns or operates a total of 500 or more miles of pipeline, the baseline assessment must be completed by March 31, 2008. For an operator who owns or operates less than 500 miles of pipeline, the baseline assessment must be completed by (seven years after the effective date of the final rule). An operator must assess at least 50% of the line pipe subject to the requirements of this section, on an expedited basis, beginning with the highest risk pipe. For an operator who owns or operates a total of 500 or more miles of pipeline, the assessment of the initial 50% of the line pipe must by completed by September 30, 2004. For an operator who owns or operates less than 500 miles of pipeline, the assessment of the initial 50% of the line pipe must be completed by (42 months after the effective date of the final rule).
            (2) Prior assessment. To satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, and if the integrity assessment method meets the requirements of this section, an operator may use an integrity assessment conducted after—January 1, 1996 for an operator who owns or operates a total of 500 or more miles of pipeline, or after (five years prior to the effective date of the final rule) for an operator who owns or operates less than 500 miles of pipeline. However, if an operator uses this prior assessment as its baseline assessment, the operator must re-assess the line pipe according to the requirements of paragraph (j)(3) of this section.

            (h) What actions must be taken to address integrity issues? * * *
            (3) Review of integrity assessment. An operator must include in its schedule for evaluation and repair (as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this section), a schedule for promptly reviewing and analyzing the integrity assessment results. After March 31, 2004 for an operator who owns or operates a total of 500 or more miles of pipeline, or after (three years after the effective date of the final rule) for an operator who owns or operates less than 500 miles of pipeline—an operator's schedule must provide for review of the integrity assessment results within 120 days of conducting each assessment. The operator must obtain and assess a final report within an additional 90 days.

            Issued in Washington DC on January 17, 2001.
            Stacey L. Gerard,
            Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 01-6821 Filed 3-20-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0990; FRL-10002-03-Region 5]
        Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a revision to Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) on March 30, 2011 and amended on August 22, 2019. The proposed SIP revision modifies Ohio's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to establish emission thresholds for determining when stationary source projects are potentially subject to Ohio's PSD permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consistent with Ohio's August 22, 2019, request, EPA is not acting on the portion of Ohio's submittal that would allow for automatic rescission of certain rule provisions and permit terms and conditions if certain triggering events occurred (i.e., the auto-rescission clause).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0990 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to ogulei.david@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Richard Angelbeck, Environmental Scientist, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9698, angelbeck.richard@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

          I. Background for our Proposed Action
          II. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
          III. What action is EPA taking?
          IV. Incorporation by Reference
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background for Our Proposed Action
        This section briefly summarizes EPA's GHG-related actions that provide the background for this proposed action. More detailed discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those actions. In particular, background information is contained in what we call the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,1
           and in the preambles to the actions it cites.

            1 See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).

        A. GHG-Related Actions
        EPA has undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the regulation of GHGs that establish the overall framework for this proposed action on the Ohio SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and the “Cause or Contribute Finding,” which EPA issued in a single final action; 2
           the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration;” 3
           the “Light-Duty Vehicle Rule (LDVR);” 4
           and the “Tailoring Rule.” 5

           Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this limiting action in the GHG Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule), which more specifically established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.

            2 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a)of the Clean Air Act.” 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).

            3 See “Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.” 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).

            4 “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.” 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).

            5 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Tile V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.” 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).

        PSD is implemented through the SIP system, and so in December 2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).6
           States without approved SIP programs must implement the Federal PSD requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.21. Recognizing that other states had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of GHG, and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the “error correction” provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).

            6 Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, EPA finalized a “SIP Call” that would require those states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. See “Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,” 75 FR 77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has made findings of failure to submit that would apply in any state unable to submit the required SIP revision by its deadline, and finalizing FIPs for such states. See, e.g., “Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,” 75 FR 81874 (December 29, 2010); “Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan, “75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).

        As of January 2, 2011, GHG emissions were, for the first time, covered by the title V operating permit and PSD programs via the Tailoring Rule. In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule (Step 1), EPA limited application of title V and PSD requirements to sources and modifications of GHG emissions, but only if they were subject to PSD or title V “anyway” due to their emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. These sources and modifications covered under Step 1 are commonly referred to as “anyway sources” and “anyway modifications”, respectively.
        In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule (Step 2), which applied as of July 1, 2011, the PSD and title V requirements extended beyond the sources and modifications covered under Step 1 to apply to sources that were classified as major sources based solely on their GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs. Step 2 also applied PSD permitting requirements to modifications of otherwise major sources that would increase only GHG emissions above the level in the Federal PSD regulations. EPA generally described the sources and modifications covered by PSD under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as “Step 2 sources and modifications” or “GHG only sources and modifications.”
        In accordance with the phase-in process of the Tailoring Rule, EPA published Step 3 of the Tailoring Rule on July 12, 2012. See 77 FR 41051. In this rule, EPA decided against further phase-in of the PSD and title V requirements for sources emitting lower levels of GHG emissions, thus the GHG thresholds remained the same as established in Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule.

        Federal courts have resolved several challenges to the Tailoring Rule and other EPA actions regarding GHGs. On June 26, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Endangerment Finding, LDVR, Tailoring Rule, and other actions pertinent to the regulation of GHGs under the PSD and title V programs. After an appeal of this case, on June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the application of stationary source permitting requirements to GHG emissions in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court upheld EPA's regulation of GHG Step 1 or “anyway” sources, but held that EPA may not treat GHGs as air pollutants for the purpose of determining whether a source is a major source or is undergoing a major modification and thus require the source to obtain a PSD or title V permit. Therefore, the Court invalidated the PSD and title V permitting requirements for Step 2 sources and modifications.
        In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, on April 10, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an Amended Judgment 7
           vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. The 2015 Amended Judgment specifically vacated the EPA regulations under review (including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) “to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.” Id. at 7-8.

            7 See Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606 Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

        In a subsequent rulemaking, on August 19, 2015, EPA removed from the CFR several provisions of the PSD and title V permitting regulations that were originally promulgated as part of the Tailoring Rule. See “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements” (80 FR 50199, August 19, 2015). This “good cause” final rule removed from the Federal regulations the portions of the PSD permitting provisions for Step 2 sources that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit (i.e., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v). EPA therefore no longer has the authority to conduct PSD permitting for Step 2 sources. On October 3, 2016, EPA proposed revisions to the PSD permitting regulations applicable to GHGs to address the GHG applicability threshold for PSD in order to fully conform with the 2014 UARG decision and the 2015 Amended Judgment, but those revisions have not been finalized. See 81 FR 68110.
        B. Ohio's Actions

        The Tailoring Rule requested all states to submit a letter to EPA, by August 2, 2010, explaining how the state intended to implement the GHG PSD and title V permitting requirements and whether it had authority to implement those requirements. 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). On July 26, 2010, Ohio provided a letter to EPA confirming that the state has the authority to regulate GHGs in its PSD program. The letter provided that Ohio intended to apply the meaning of the term “subject to regulation” that EPA established in the Tailoring Rule. The letter also confirmed Ohio's intent to amend its air quality rules for the PSD program for GHGs to match the thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Ohio's letter.
        In the SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010), EPA withdrew its approval of certain provisions of Ohio's SIP, among other SIPs, to the extent that those provisions applied PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions from sources emitting at levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.8
           As a result, Ohio's current SIP provides the state with authority to regulate GHGs but only at and above the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and requires new and modified sources to receive a PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if they emit at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.

            8 “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.” 75 FR 82536 December 30, 2010).

        Ohio's proposal to revise its SIP so as to limit PSD applicability to the higher GHG emissions thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), which requires states to provide necessary assurances that they have adequate funding and personnel to implement their SIPs. In the Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds for PSD applicability to GHG-emitting sources on grounds that the states generally did not have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds,9
           and no state, including Ohio, asserted that it did have adequate resources to do so.10

            9 Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31517.

            10 PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82540.

        In the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the affected states, including Ohio, had a flaw in their SIPs at the time they submitted their PSD programs, which was that the applicability of the PSD programs was potentially broader than the resources available to them under their SIP.11
           Accordingly, for each affected state, including Ohio, EPA concluded, under CAA section 110(k)(6), that EPA's action in approving the SIP was in error, and EPA rescinded its approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.12
           EPA recommended that states adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that under state law, only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion under the federally-approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP only applies to sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.13
           Ohio revised its PSD and title V rules by creating Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules 3745-31-34 and 3745-77-11, respectively (Ohio's GHG rules) to ensure that its authority to implement GHG permitting requirements under the PSD and title V programs is consistent with the authority authorized by EPA in the Tailoring Rule. Ohio's rule revisions also incorporated the GHG PSD applicability thresholds that EPA established in the Tailoring Rule. Approval of Ohio's SIP revision would resolve a flaw in the SIP as addressed by the SIP Narrowing Rule.

            11 Id. at 82542.

            12 Id. at 82544.

            13 Id. at 82540.

        II. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
        The regulatory revisions that OEPA submitted for approval on March 30, 2011, establish thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modifications become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under OEPA's PSD program. Specifically, the submittal includes proposed changes to Ohio's PSD regulations and requests that EPA approve and incorporate into Ohio's federally-approved SIP OAC rule 3745-31-34, that Ohio adopted on March 21, 2011. Upon approval, this revision to Ohio's SIP will put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule which will clarify the applicable GHG thresholds in the Ohio SIP.
        Ohio is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program and has previously incorporated some elements of EPA's 2002 New Source Review (NSR) reform revisions, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002) for PSD into its SIP, 75 FR 8496 (February 25, 2010). In a letter provided to EPA on July 26, 2010, Ohio notified EPA of its interpretation that the state currently has the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD regulations. Ohio's PSD SIP, which EPA approved prior to the promulgation of the Tailoring Rule, applies to major stationary sources (having the potential to emit at least 100 tpy or 250 tpy or more of a regulated NSR pollutant, depending on the type of source) or modifications undertaken in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
        On August 22, 2019, Ohio sent a letter to EPA requesting that EPA not act on OAC 3745-31-34(C) and (D) as well as OAC 3745-77-11, but to move forward with the approval of the remainder of OAC 3745-31-34 (OAC 3745-31-34(A),(B),(E),(F) and (G)), thus amending Ohio's March 30, 2011 SIP submittal. OAC 3745-31-34(C) and (D) would allow for automatic rescission of certain GHG rule provisions and permit terms and conditions if certain triggering events occurred. Such provisions are commonly referred to as “auto-rescission” provisions or clauses. Consistent with Ohio's request, EPA is not acting on the auto-rescission provisions in this proposed approval. Per Ohio's request, EPA is also not acting on OAC 3745-77-11, Ohio's GHG title V rule.

        The Ohio rules at OAC 3745-31-34(A) and (B) both include the 100,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) Step 2 source threshold which EPA no longer uses or enforces per the 2014 UARG decision and 2015 Amended Judgment. EPA proposes to approve OAC 3745-31-34(A) and (B) even though they include the outdated 100,000 tpy CO2e Step 2 threshold because those rules no longer authorize the regulation of Step 2 sources. Paragraph OAC 3745-31-34(A) requires permits for new major stationary sources that will emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy or more of CO2e, and for modifications of existing stationary sources that will result in a net emissions increase of 75,000 tpy or more of CO2e, as provided in the Ohio GHG rule and “only to the extent required in 40 CFR Section 151.166.” EPA interprets the phrase “and only to the extent required in 40 CFR Section 51.166” in Ohio's rule to mean that Ohio will only regulate GHGs to the extent required in 40 CFR 51.166 (the Federal requirements governing PSD provisions in SIPs). Therefore, Ohio will regulate the Step 1 sources (75,000 tpy CO2e threshold) and not the Step 2 sources (100,000 tpy threshold) as provided in 40 CFR 51.166. EPA notes that Ohio's August 26, 2014 guidance document titled “July 2014 GHG Air Pollution Permitting Change, Engineering Guide #85” describes how the UARG decision affects Ohio's GHG permitting program and how Ohio will no longer require PSD or title V for Step 2 sources in response to the UARG decision. Ohio's guidance document says Ohio will continue to require new or modified Step 1 sources to apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for GHGs and will continue to use the 75,000 tpy CO2e threshold to determine if the permits need to include BACT for GHGs until such time as EPA issues a revised threshold. Ohio's guidance document also explains that OAC 3745-31-34 will be implemented in line with the UARG decision and EPA's subsequent regulatory revisions.

        For the above reasons, EPA finds that Ohio is properly regulating GHGs in accordance with the 2014 UARG decision and 2015 Amended Judgement. Although OAC 3745-31-34(A) and (B) contain the 100,000 CO2e tpy Step 2 threshold which the UARG decision says cannot be enforced, EPA is proposing to approve those rules because Ohio is not regulating the Step 2 sources, and is only regulating the Step 1 sources.
        III. What action is EPA taking?
        EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's March 30, 2011, SIP submittal, as amended on August 22, 2019, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources in OAC 3745-31-34. Specifically, Ohio's proposed SIP revision would establish appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability for new and modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule and the 2014 UARG decision. Per Ohio's August 22, 2019, amended SIP request, EPA is not acting on the OAC 3745-31-34(C) and (D) auto-rescission clause or OAC 3745-77-11, which is Ohio's GHG title V rule.
        If EPA does approve Ohio's changes to its air quality regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG permitting applicability into Ohio's SIP, then 40 CFR 52.1873(b), as included in EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule, which codifies EPA's limiting its approval of Ohio's PSD SIP to not cover the applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds, is no longer necessary. In this proposed action, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 52.1873(b) to remove this unnecessary regulatory language.
        IV. Incorporation by Reference

        In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Ohio OAC 3745-31-34(A), (B), (E), (F) and (G) effective on March 31, 2011. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 31, 2019.
          Cheryl L. Newton,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2019-24688 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-AY47
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Amendment 5

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 5), incorporating the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for review by the Secretary of Commerce and is requesting comments from the public.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, June 21, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          The Council prepared a FEIS for Amendment 5 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 5, including the FEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the IRFA, are available from: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. The FEIS/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.

          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0066, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0066, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Herring Amendment 5 NOA.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272; fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The goals of Amendment 5 are to: (1) Improve the collection of real-time, accurate catch information; (2) enhance the monitoring and sampling of catch at-sea; and (3) address bycatch issues through responsible management.
        On May 8, 2008 (73 FR 26082), the Council published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 4 to Atlantic Herring FMP to consider measures to: Improve long-term monitoring of catch (landings and bycatch) in the herring fishery, implement annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and develop a sector allocation process or other limited access privilege program for the herring fishery. The Council subsequently conducted scoping meetings during May and June of 2008 to discuss and take comments on alternatives to these measures. After considering the complexity of the issues under consideration in Amendment 4, the Council voted on June 23, 2009, to split the action into two amendments to ensure the MSA requirements for complying with provisions for ACLs and AMs were be met by 2011. The ACL and AM components moved forward in Amendment 4, all other measures formerly considered in Amendment 4 were to be considered in Amendment 5. A supplementary NOI was published on December 28, 2009, (74 FR 68577) announcing the split between the amendments, and that impacts associated with alternatives considered in Amendment 5 would be analyzed in an EIS. At that time, measures considered under Amendment 5 included: Catch-monitoring program, measures to address river herring bycatch, midwater trawl access to groundfish closed areas, and measures to address interactions with the Atlantic mackerel fishery.
        Following further development of Amendment 5, the Council conducted MSA public hearings in March 2012, National Environmental Policy Act public hearings at the beginning of June 2012, and following the public comment period on the draft EIS that ended on June 4, 2012, the Council adopted Amendment 5 on June 20, 2012. The Council submitted Amendment 5 to NOAA Fisheries Service (NMFS) for review on September 10, 2012. Following a series of revisions, the Council submitted a revised version of Amendment 5 to NMFS on March 25, 2013. In Amendment 5, measures recommended by the Council would:
        • Modify the herring transfer at-sea and offload definitions to better document the transfer of fish;
        • Expand possession limit restrictions to all vessels working cooperatively, consistent with pair trawl requirements;
        • Eliminate the vessel monitoring system (VMS) power-down provision for limited access herring vessels, consistent with VMS provisions for other fisheries;
        • Establish an “At-Sea Herring Dealer” permit to better document the at-sea transfer and sale of herring;
        • Establish an “Areas 2/3 Open Access Permit” to reduce the potential for the regulatory discarding of herring in the Atlantic mackerel fishery;
        • Expand dealer reporting requirements;
        • Allow vessels to enroll as herring carriers with either a VMS declaration or letter of authorization to increase operational flexibility;
        • Expand pre-trip and pre-landing notification requirements, as well as adding a VMS gear declaration, to all limited access herring vessels to help facilitate monitoring;
        • Reduce the advance notice requirement for the observer pre-trip notification from 72 hours to 48 hours;
        • Expand vessel requirements related to at-sea observer sampling to help ensure safe sampling and improve data quality;

        • Establish measures to minimize the discarding of catch before it has been made available to observers for sampling;

        • Increase observer coverage on Category A and B vessels and require industry contributions of $325 per day;
        • Establish the ability to consider a river herring catch cap in a future framework to directly control river herring fishing mortality;
        • Allow the joint Sustainable Fisheries Coalition/University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and Technology/Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries bycatch avoidance program to investigate providing real-time, cost-effective information on river herring distribution and fishery encounters in River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas; and
        • Expand at-sea sampling of midwater trawl vessels fishing in groundfish closed areas.

        Public comments are solicited on Amendment 5 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability (NOA). Following NMFS's review of the amendment under the MSA, a rule proposing the implementation of measures in Amendment 5 is anticipated to be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Public comments must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this NOA of Amendment 5 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA of Amendment 5, whether specifically directed to NOA or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period for the NOA will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision of Amendment 5.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: April 17, 2013.
          Kara Meckley,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-09390 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P