Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines, 52504-52519 [06-7438]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52504-52519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7438]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864; Notice 3]
RIN 2137-AD98


Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural 
Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to extend pipeline safety regulations to 
rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low-stress lines 
within a defined buffer of previously defined ``unusually sensitive 
areas.'' These are non-populated areas requiring extra protection 
because of the presence of sole source drinking water resources, 
endangered species, or other ecological resources.
    This proposal will define ``regulated rural onshore gathering 
lines'' and ``regulated rural onshore low-stress lines'' and require 
operators of the lines to comply with certain safety requirements. 
These proposed safety requirements will address the most common threats 
to the integrity of these rural lines: corrosion and third-party 
damage. This proposal is intended to provide additional integrity 
protection for unusually sensitive areas that could be affected by 
these lines and improve public confidence in the safety of hazardous 
liquid rural onshore gathering and low-stress lines.

DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on the rules 
proposed in this document must do so by November 6, 2006. PHMSA will 
consider late filed comments so far as practicable.

[[Page 52505]]


ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to the docket by any of the 
following methods:
     Mail: Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Anyone 
wanting confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed 
stamped postcard.
     Hand delivery or courier: Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC. The Dockets Facility is open from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov, click on ``Comments/
Submissions'' and follow instructions at the site. Alternatively, go to 
https://regulations.gov.
    All written comments should identify the docket number and notice 
number stated in the heading of this notice.
    Docket access. For copies of this notice or other material in the 
docket, you may contact the Dockets Facility by phone (202-366-9329) or 
go to the hand delivery address. For Web access to the docket to read 
and download filed material, go to https://dms.dot.gov/search. Then type 
in the last five digits of the docket number shown in the heading of 
this notice, and click on ``Search.''
    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments filed in any 
of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual filing the comment (or 
signing the comment, if filed for an entity such as an association, 
business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the April 11, 2000 issue of the Federal Register (65 FR 
19477) or go to https://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405-954-
7220 or by e-mail at Dewitt.Burdeaux@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

a. History

    Over the past six years, PHMSA has designed and executed a risk-
based system approach to oversight of the national pipeline 
infrastructure. This approach is embodied in the ``Integrity Management 
Program'' of the agency and its budget. The program has many elements, 
including the data that supports the agency's decision making, 
regulatory framework, enforcement program, training and preparation of 
Federal and State inspectors, research and development to advance 
integrity assessment and management, and performance measurement and 
reporting. We have sought advice on each aspect of the program at the 
conceptual stage from our technical advisory committee members and in 
public meetings.
    As to regulatory framework, we undertook rulemaking projects on a 
risk-prioritized basis, acting first on those parts of the 
infrastructure that posed the greatest risk to people and the 
environment. To begin the program, we defined high consequence areas 
and mapped the locations on the National Pipeline Mapping System, 
including areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage, which we 
previously defined in our 2000 regulation. Since 2000, we have 
completed and implemented regulations that provided integrity 
management protections for people and the environment that could be 
affected by a failure from high pressure, large and small hazardous 
liquid pipelines and provided protections to people that could be 
affected by high pressure gas transmission pipelines. We recently 
completed our gas gathering lines regulation by taking an integrity-
related approach to protecting people from gas gathering lines. We 
began consideration of the current regulatory initiative in 2003 and 
discussed it during our technical advisory committee meetings, and at 
public meetings in 2004. This is the remaining element in the 
regulatory framework designed to protect unusually sensitive areas from 
hazardous liquid pipelines in rural areas.

b. PHMSA's Safety Rules for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Exempt Rural 
Low-Stress Lines and Gathering Lines

    Low-stress lines generally transport hazardous liquid at low-stress 
levels for relatively short distances to and from refineries and 
terminals, while gathering lines transport petroleum products from 
production facilities to downstream locations, such as a refinery or 
processing plant.
    PHMSA's safety rules for hazardous liquid pipelines (49 CFR part 
195) apply to both offshore and onshore gathering and low-stress lines. 
PHMSA currently regulates gathering lines in populated areas, and those 
in rural areas in the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico. PHMSA also 
regulates low-stress lines that are located in populated areas or cross 
commercially navigable waterways. It also regulates any low-stress line 
transporting highly volatile liquids. These lines are subject to all of 
the regulatory requirements in part 195.
    This proposal impacts some of the onshore rural gathering lines and 
low-stress lines that PHMSA currently exempts from all or portions of 
the part 195 regulatory requirements. Onshore gathering lines in rural 
areas are exempt from all part 195 rules except requirements for 
inspection and burial in Gulf of Mexico inlets (Sec.  195.1(b)(4)). 
Part 195 defines ``gathering line'' as a pipeline 8\5/8\ inches or less 
in nominal outside diameter that transports petroleum from a production 
facility. The term ``production facility'' is defined as piping or 
equipment used in the production, extraction, recovery, lifting, 
stabilization, separation, or treating of petroleum or carbon dioxide, 
and associated storage or measurement. To qualify, piping or equipment 
must be used to extract petroleum or carbon dioxide from the ground or 
facilities where petroleum or carbon dioxide is produced and prepared 
for transportation by pipeline. This includes piping between treatment 
plants that extract carbon dioxide and facilities used for the 
injection of carbon dioxide for recovery operations. The term 
``petroleum'' means crude oil, condensate, natural gasoline, natural 
gas liquids, and liquefied petroleum gas. Also, ``rural area'' means 
outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, 
village, or any other designated residential or commercial area such as 
a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community development.
    Part 195 defines ``low-stress'' as a hazardous liquid pipeline 
operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the 
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the line pipe. SMYS is the 
minimum yield strength, expressed in p.s.i. (kPa) gage, prescribed by 
the specification under which the material is purchased from the 
manufacturer. Low-stress lines in rural areas are exempt from part 195 
if they transport nonvolatile petroleum products and are located 
outside a waterway currently used for commercial navigation. Under this 
proposal, some of these rural lines will no longer be exempt if within 
a defined buffer zone of an unusually sensitive area. This proposal 
will not affect other exempt low-stress lines, specifically pipelines 
subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard, or those 
pipelines that serve certain refining and terminal facilities, if the 
pipeline is less than 1-mile long (measured outside of facility 
grounds) and does not cross an offshore area or a waterway currently 
used for commercial navigation.

c. Statutory Authority

    Except for a 1991 requirement establishing inspection and burial 
rules for pipelines, including rural gathering

[[Page 52506]]

lines, located in Gulf of Mexico inlets, from 1979 until 1992, PHMSA 
did not have statutory authority to regulate rural gathering lines.\1\ 
It was not until the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 
60101(a)(22)), that Congress gave DOT authority to regulate certain 
rural gathering lines. This legislation directed DOT to define the term 
``gathering line'' by October 24, 1994, and the term ``regulated 
gathering line'' by October 24, 1995 (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(1)(A) and 
(b)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although these lines are not regulated under part 195, 
PHMSA's rules for onshore oil spill response plans (49 CFR part 194) 
cover many rural crude oil gathering lines and low-stress lines. 
Part 194 regulations apply to oil pipelines that could cause 
substantial harm to the environment by spilling oil into or on any 
navigable water of the United States or adjoining shoreline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four years later, in the Accountable Pipeline Safety and 
Partnership Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-304), Congress moderated its 
directive to define ``regulated gathering line'' by adding the words 
``if appropriate'' (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(A)). Congress also gave DOT 
specific authority to collect information from gathering line operators 
related to deciding whether and to what extent to regulate rural 
gathering lines (49 U.S.C. 60117(b)). Because of the need to regulate 
the safety of certain rural petroleum gathering lines (as explained in 
section II of this preamble), we think it is now appropriate to define 
the term ``regulated gathering line'' for hazardous liquid 
transportation.
    In defining ``regulated gathering line'' for hazardous liquid 
transportation, PHMSA is required by statute to consider various 
physical characteristics to decide which rural onshore gathering lines 
need safety regulation. These characteristics include location, length 
of line from the well site, operating pressure, throughput, and 
composition of the transported hazardous liquid (49 U.S.C. 
60101(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B)(i)). Further, the statute states a 
``regulated gathering line'' may not include ``a crude oil [petroleum] 
gathering line that has a nominal diameter of not more than 6 inches, 
is operated at low pressure, and is located in a rural area that is not 
unusually sensitive to environmental damage'' (49 U.S.C. 
60101(b)(2)(B)(ii)).\2\ In other words, in rural areas unusually 
sensitive to environmental damage, PHMSA may regulate petroleum 
gathering lines of any diameter or operating pressure. But in other 
rural areas, PHMSA may not regulate petroleum gathering lines 6 inches 
or less in nominal diameter operating at a low pressure. Congress did 
not define ``low pressure'' or areas ``unusually sensitive to 
environmental damage.'' PHMSA, however, has defined ``unusually 
sensitive areas'' in Sec. Sec.  195.2 and 195.6, and low-stress 
hazardous liquid pipeline in Sec.  195.2, as discussed above. PHMSA 
considers a low pressure pipeline synonymous to a low-stress pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In addition to these requirements related specifically to 
regulated gathering lines, under the Federal pipeline safety law, 
PHMSA must consider various other factors in prescribing pipeline 
safety rules (see 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA has statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102 to prescribe 
regulations that provide adequate protection against risks to life and 
property posed by pipeline transportation. This statute requires PHMSA 
to develop practicable standards designed to ensure hazardous liquids 
are safely transported by pipeline of any stress level, and to protect 
people and the environment. PHMSA's authority (49 U.S.C. 60102(k)) 
specifically prohibits it from excepting from regulation a hazardous 
liquid pipeline facility only because the facility operates at low 
internal stress.

d. Public Participates in Decision Making

1. Meetings
    In 2003, PHMSA invited the public to discuss oil and gas gathering 
line issues at meetings in Austin, Texas (68 FR 62555; Nov. 5, 2003) 
and Anchorage, Alaska (68 FR 67129; Dec. 1, 2003). The meetings gave 
people an opportunity to comment on what might make regulating the 
safety of rural gathering lines appropriate, and what the safety rules 
should be. State pipeline safety agencies also actively participated in 
these meetings. Transcripts of both meetings are in the docket (PHMSA-
2003-15864-2 and 3).
    Following the two public meetings, PHMSA published a notice to 
clarify its plans about regulating rural gathering lines (69 FR 5305; 
Feb. 4, 2004). In the notice, PHMSA sought comments on a suitable 
approach to identifying gathering lines it should regulate.
    PHMSA held a public workshop to discuss the need to regulate rural 
low-stress lines on June 26, 2006, in Alexandria, Virginia. This 
meeting is discussed further in section C.3. of this document.
2. Comments Addressing Rural Gathering Lines
    Because of the public meetings and clarification notice, PHMSA 
received several comments on regulating rural gathering lines. Next is 
a summary of the significant comments.
    The Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL), a trade association 
representing operators of hazardous liquid pipelines, stated gathering 
lines usually are in areas of little population and operate at low 
pressures. It said most releases are due to small corrosion leaks and 
operators repair the leaks quickly. AOPL found that 67 percent of these 
hazardous liquid leaks resulted in spills of less than five barrels. 
Thus, AOPL said, releases were unlikely to have serious public safety 
or environmental consequences. Nevertheless, in recognition of 
Congress' safety concerns, AOPL said it would support limited pipeline 
safety regulation of certain higher-risk rural gathering lines as a 
reasonable balance between costs and risk. It said comprehensive 
regulation could cause oil producers to shut in marginally profitable 
wells or switch to riskier truck transport.
    AOPL put forward a regulatory plan for rural crude oil gathering 
lines. The plan covers any line 6 inches or more in nominal diameter 
operating at a hoop stress of more than 20 percent of SMYS if the line 
could affect a high consequence area. AOPL said operators should have 
discretion in selecting a method to identify which gathering lines 
could affect high consequence areas. (Section 195.450 defines a ``high 
consequence area'' as a commercially navigable waterway, an area of 
high or concentrated population, or an unusually sensitive area. And 
Sec.  195.6 defines ``unusually sensitive area'' as a drinking water or 
ecological resource unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a 
hazardous liquid pipeline release. Both sections contain subordinate 
definitions that further explain the meaning of ``high consequence 
area'' and ``unusually sensitive area.'')
    AOPL's plan recommended certain safety regulations it thought would 
be suitable for higher-risk rural gathering lines. AOPL's plan includes 
the corrosion control rules in subpart H of part 195. In addition, to 
address excavation damage, AOPL's plan includes the public education 
rules in Sec.  195.440 and the damage prevention program rules in Sec.  
195.442. Finally, the plan includes the accident and safety-related 
condition reporting rules in subpart B of part 195.
    AOPL also suggested PHMSA regulate nonrural gathering lines in 
locations with rural characteristics in the same manner as rural 
gathering lines. Although AOPL did not offer a method to identify these 
lines, the most likely method would be a population density survey. 
Part 195 does not require operators of nonrural gathering lines to 
conduct population density surveys. Thus, PHMSA believes it would be 
burdensome for operators to conduct

[[Page 52507]]

such surveys just to identify nonrural line segments in rural-like 
settings and to discover later changes in population. Apart from AOPL's 
comment, operators of nonrural gathering lines have not expressed 
dissatisfaction with the present regulatory scheme of part 195. 
Therefore, PHMSA is not proposing to change how part 195 applies to 
nonrural gathering lines.
    After filing its written comment, AOPL sent PHMSA data for the 
years 2001-2003 on 583 gathering line spills collected from five of its 
member companies, representing multiple gathering systems. The origin 
of the data was the industry's Pipeline Performance Tracking System, a 
voluntary data collection effort that began in 1999. Participants 
report spills of 5 gallons or more to land and all spills to water from 
oil pipelines, whether regulated by part 195 or not. AOPL's data shows 
one third of the spills were 5 barrels or more. The data also show 
corrosion (84%) and excavation damage (7%) caused 91 percent of the 
reported gathering line spills; pipe material and weld failure, 2 
percent; and other identified causes, less than 1 percent.
    Arctic Connections, an environmental consulting firm based in 
Alaska, urged PHMSA to regulate rural gathering lines in sensitive 
Alaskan wetlands and coastal environments because oil spills threaten 
subsistence living and have lasting effects in the Arctic. The Cook 
Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council, a nonprofit environmental 
protection organization, and Cook Inlet Keeper, a nonprofit watershed 
protection organization, also supported regulation of unregulated 
pipelines that threaten Alaska's Cook Inlet. To show the need for 
regulation, Arctic Connections and Cook Inlet Keeper filed data from 
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and other 
sources on releases by various unregulated pipelines in Alaska. 
Although the data do not distinguish pipelines by type, Cook Inlet 
Keeper said its review showed most of the oil spills in Cook Inlet 
between 1998 and 2003 came from unregulated gathering lines.
    North Slope Borough, the northernmost county of Alaska, favored 
regulation of all high-pressure, large-diameter North Slope lines that 
could injure residents or affect subsistence living, the environment, 
or traditional use areas.
    Delta County Colorado considered regulation of rural gathering 
lines essential to assure safe development of oil and gas in areas 
experiencing increased pressures of population growth. Delta County 
thought safety rules should apply to all gathering lines (rural and 
nonrural), but should be suitable for the risks involved.
    Chevron Texaco Upstream and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
suggested PHMSA identify and analyze the risks of rural gathering lines 
and target regulations to specific problems. The Independent Petroleum 
Association of America (IPAA) also urged PHMSA to focus on actual--not 
speculative--risks.
    DOE and IPAA were concerned with the possible increased costs of 
gathering crude oil could cause producers to shut in marginally 
profitable wells. They pointed out that added costs would have the 
potential to reduce the nation's oil supply and hinder development of 
new wells.\3\ The Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission defines 
marginal wells, sometimes called ``stripper'' wells, as wells producing 
10 barrels of oil per day or less. DOE also said some part 195 rules, 
such as integrity management, corrosion control, personnel 
qualification, public education, accident reporting, and determining 
whether a pipeline could affect a high consequence area, could be too 
costly for smaller operators to carry out. (A discussion of energy 
impacts is under the Regulatory Analyses and Notices section of this 
document.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Marginal wells account for 16 percent of US oil production 
(Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, ``Marginal Oil and 
Natural Gas: American Energy for the American Dream, 2005).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) also 
expressed concern about the potential impact on marginal wells of 
imposing new safety rules on rural gathering lines. In addition, OIPA 
argued PHMSA should not consider regulating rural gathering lines until 
it has data showing the types and scale of safety problems.
3. Comments Addressing Rural Low-Stress Lines
    On June 26, 2006, PHMSA held both a public workshop and meeting of 
the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee to 
discuss how best to regulate low-stress lines to better protect 
unusually sensitive areas from risks from spills. During this meeting 
PHMSA received several significant comments.
    API and AOPL presented their proposal, which is discussed in detail 
in Section II. b. below. The majority of the participants agreed that 
recent accidents reinforced the need for PHMSA's plan to regulate low-
stress lines near unusually sensitive areas (USAs), and supported, for 
the most part, API's and AOPL's regulatory proposal. API and AOPL's 
proposal recommended low-stress lines located within \1/4\ mile of an 
USA, i.e., buffer, be partially regulated under part 195. Their 
analysis of the spill data for low-stress pipelines showed that the \1/
4\-mile buffer would contain the spread in 99.6% of the releases. 
Several of the commenters questioned whether the proposed \1/4\-mile 
buffer was large enough to provide adequate protection to these 
critical areas. Some commented on whether a larger buffer would 
encompass too many lines. Others questioned the effectiveness of leak 
detection methods on these lines. The transcript of this meeting is in 
the docket (PHMSA-2003-15864). PHMSA invites comments on whether the 
proposed \1/4\-mile buffer zone is appropriate.
    Conoco Phillips noted that most unregulated low-stress pipelines 
are less than 1-mile long, and are rarely more than 25 miles. Conoco 
Phillips also noted that the primary threat to the unregulated low-
stress lines is corrosion because many lack an effective coating and 
cathodic protection. Further, it noted that internal corrosion may be 
exacerbated by water and microbiological organisms.
    The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation also believes 
that government oversight is needed for unregulated low-stress lines, 
and shared its proposal on how Alaska plans to address lines not 
currently regulated by PHMSA.

II. Need To Regulate

a. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines

    Congress recognized some rural gathering lines might pose risks 
warranting federal safety regulation and authorized DOT to regulate a 
class of rural gathering lines called ``regulated gathering lines'' 
based on risk-related physical characteristics, such as diameter, 
pressure, location, and length of line. In its report on H.R. 1489, a 
bill that led to the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, the House Committee 
on Energy and Commerce said ``DOT should find out whether any gathering 
lines present a risk to people or the environment, and if so how large 
a risk and what measures should be taken to mitigate the risk'' (H.R. 
Report No. 102-247--Part 1, 102d Cong., 1st Session, 23 (1991)). In 
PHMSA's view, Congress wanted to limit ``regulated gathering lines'' to 
lines posing a significant risk and to limit regulation of those lines 
to suitable risk-reduction measures.
    To get more information about rural crude oil gathering lines PHMSA 
asked the public whether these pipelines pose a risk warranting 
pipeline safety

[[Page 52508]]

regulation, and, if so, what those rules should be. As discussed in 
section I of this preamble, commenters largely recognized a need for 
PHMSA safety rules to prevent serious accidents and to respond to 
Congress' safety concern. Most commenters backed rules addressing known 
risks of a significant scale. However, a few commenters expressed 
concern that extensive rules could cause producers to shut in marginal 
wells or divert transportation to riskier modes--mainly trucks.
    A few commenters submitted data about oil pipeline accidents, 
including accidents on rural crude oil gathering lines. AOPL's data 
show corrosion damage and excavation damage were the leading causes of 
spills, and 33 percent of the spills were 5 barrels or more. Although 
the data do not separate spills occurring from rural gathering lines 
from those occurring from other unregulated liquid lines, the spill 
causes are consistent with PHMSA's accident data on hazardous liquid 
pipelines overall. Also, there is no reason to expect rural gathering 
lines are less vulnerable to corrosion, excavation damage, and other 
integrity threats than nonrural gathering lines. They may be even more 
vulnerable because they have not been subject to federal safety 
regulation to ensure their continued integrity. While we have limited 
data, we think it is reasonable to assume AOPL's data are 
representative of rural crude oil gathering lines. A full discussion of 
the available data is in the regulatory evaluation for this proposed 
rulemaking, which can be obtained in the docket listed above.
    A 1997 report by California's Office of the State Fire Marshal, 
``An Assessment of Low-Pressure Crude Oil Pipelines and Gathering 
Lines,'' strengthens this assessment. In California, the State Fire 
Marshal regulates intrastate pipelines covered by part 195. The report, 
available online at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/lowpressrpt.html, concerns 
accidents during 1993-1995 on rural gathering lines and other pipelines 
specifically exempt from part 195. According to the report, the leading 
causes of the accidents `` corrosion and excavation damage--matched the 
leading causes of accidents on regulated pipelines.

b. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Low-Stress Lines

    The original safety regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines did 
not apply to any low-stress pipelines. Because of their low operating 
pressures and minimal accident history, low-stress hazardous liquid 
pipelines were thought to pose little risk to public safety. PHMSA 
began rulemaking in this area in 1990 following one of the most 
prominent hazardous liquid pipeline accidents on record involving the 
spill of approximately 500,000 gallons of heating oil from an 
underwater pipeline in Arthur Kill Channel in New York.
    To get more information on low-stress lines, in 1990, PHMSA 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (55 FR 
45822; October 31, 1990). In the ANPRM, PHMSA sought information about 
the costs and benefits of regulating low-stress lines. The analysis of 
the data received in response to the ANPRM showed regulation of all 
low-stress pipelines could impose costs disproportionate to benefits. 
PHMSA, therefore, focused on those low-stress pipelines posing a higher 
risk to people and the environment. The risk factors identified were 
the commodity in transportation and the location of the pipeline. In 
1994, PHMSA extended the hazardous liquid safety requirements to low-
stress pipelines that transport highly volatile liquids (HVL) in all 
locations, and other low-stress lines in populated areas and where the 
pipeline segments cross navigable waterways. In this rulemaking, PHMSA 
deferred regulating non-HVL low-stress pipelines in rural 
environmentally sensitive areas pending development of a suitable 
definition of ``environmentally sensitive area.'' The agency said it 
was developing a better concept of what constitutes an environmentally 
sensitive area for purposes of pipeline regulation and this would 
provide the groundwork for the future rulemaking on rural low-stress 
lines. PHMSA explained that it needed to learn the extent to which low-
stress pipeline spills affect environmentally sensitive areas and the 
definition used in part 194 (Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines) 
was too broad for part 195.
    In 2000, PHMSA issued a final rule defining ``unusually sensitive 
areas'' (USAs) (65 FR 246). The USAs address higher risk 
environmentally sensitive areas needing extra protection. In this rule, 
PHMSA noted its 1994 decision to defer regulating nonvolatile products 
transported in low-stress pipelines located in rural sensitive areas 
until it defined these areas. The agency reiterated its intention to 
reconsider the issue once there was a sensitive area definition. In 
2000, PHMSA defined protection of USAs for most hazardous liquid 
pipelines through its integrity management regulations. As explained 
previously in section I.a, this definition was essential to PHMSA's 
completing its series of risk-based rulemakings to provide better 
protection to people and the environment from high pressure hazardous 
liquid pipelines, high pressure gas transmission pipelines and rural 
gas gathering pipelines. Protecting these areas from rural low-stress 
lines is the last of these initiatives.
    Since 2000, there have been about 30 hazardous liquid low-stress 
line incidents on lines PHMSA currently regulates. While PHMSA does not 
have incident data for non-regulated lines, we believe a comparable 
number of incidents have occurred on currently unregulated low-stress 
lines, some of which have been significant. For instance on August 6, 
2006, a crude oil spill occurred on a 30-inch, unregulated low-stress 
pipeline in the Eastern Operating Area of the Prudhoe Bay Field on the 
North Slope of Alaska. This spill resulted in the release of at least 
20 barrels of crude oil onto the tundra, and at least another 175 
barrels that were collected in a portable tank. Previously, on March 2, 
2006, a leak from a 34-inch, unregulated low-stress pipeline was 
discovered in the Western Operating Area of the Prudhoe Bay Field. This 
leak resulted in the release of approximately 5,000 barrels of 
processed crude oil. Although we believe these incidents are not 
representative of the condition of unregulated rural low-stress lines 
in the lower 48 states, these incidents reinforced the necessity for 
PHMSA to complete this rulemaking to better protect USAs from any spill 
that could occur from an unregulated rural low-stress pipeline.
    As PHMSA was developing its proposal on how best to address rural 
low-stress lines, after the March incident, API and AOPL submitted a 
regulatory proposal on how PHMSA should address certain currently 
exempt low-stress pipelines. The proposal requests PHMSA:
     Add a new subpart in part 195 to address assessment and 
control of low pressure pipelines;
     Define regulated low-stress lines as pipelines with a 
diameter greater than 8\5/8\ inches, operating at 20 percent or less of 
SMYS, located off the operator's property, and located within \1/4\-
mile of an unusually sensitive area; and
     Modify 49 CFR 195.1(b)(iii) to add petroleum storage 
facilities to the list of facilities exempt from regulation, unless a 
facility crosses a sole source aquifer in an unusually sensitive area.
    Further, API and AOPL propose that PHMSA add programmatic 
requirements to require operators of a regulated rural low-stress line 
to comply with the reporting requirements in subpart B, the corrosion 
control requirements in subpart H, the line marker requirements in 
Sec.  195.410, and four additional requirements:

[[Page 52509]]

    1. Assessment: The operator should inspect the pipeline using in-
line inspection tools or commensurate technology to assess the pipeline 
segment every five years unless the operator performs an engineering 
analysis to justify a longer timeframe.
    2. Leak Detection: The operator should have a means to detect leaks 
on the covered pipelines.
    3. Damage Prevention: The operator should put in place basic damage 
prevention practices, such as registering facilities with one-call 
organizations and excavation monitoring.
    4. Training for Abnormal Operating Conditions: The operator should 
be trained to recognize and respond to abnormal operating conditions.
    Lastly, API and AOPL recommend, with the exception of line 
identification, operators have up to 5 years after the effective date 
of a rule to begin compliance.
    As a follow-up to the June 26th public meeting, the Cook Inlet 
Regional Citizens Advisory Council submitted comments to the docket. 
Cook Inlet recommends eliminating the low-stress regulatory exemption 
in 49 CFR 195.1(b)(3)(i). Instead, Cook Inlet recommends PHSMA apply 
its baseline pipeline regulations to all low-stress transmission 
pipelines, and its integrity management program rules to those low-
stress transmission pipelines that may affect High Consequence Areas.
    API and AOPL also submitted supplemental information reflecting 
their analysis of spill data. They found that of the 312 large releases 
of hazardous liquids (greater than five barrels) between 1999 and 2004, 
only 67 (21%) were from low-stress transmission pipelines. Further, 
releases from low-stress lines accounted for only 7% of the total 
volume of hazardous liquid releases from all pipeline incidents. They 
determined that corrosion (64%) and third party damage (21%) together 
caused 85% of these releases from low-stress pipelines.

c. Conclusion for Need To Regulate

    Based on our consideration of Congress' safety concern, the public 
comments, and the accident data, we believe the potential for future 
harm to the public's health and environment from rural onshore 
gathering and rural low-stress lines is clear. The record shows rural 
gathering lines experience the same leading causes of accidents as 
hazardous liquid pipelines we now regulate, and releases from 
unregulated low-stress lines can affect unusually sensitive areas. 
Therefore, we believe it no longer appropriate to continue to exempt 
rural onshore gathering lines and rural low-stress lines from nearly 
all safety requirements in part 195.

III. Regulatory Options

    In considering what safety rules should apply to ``regulated rural 
gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural low-stress lines,'' the first 
alternative we considered was to collect more information about the 
potential hazards of these lines before proposing any specific safety 
rules. We rejected this alternative because we believe we have 
sufficient information; collecting more information would be unlikely 
to change our current understanding of the risks these lines pose.
    The second alternative we considered was to apply all part 195 
rules to regulated rural gathering lines and, as suggested by Cook 
Inlet, for regulated rural low-stress lines. We rejected this 
alternative because it could impose significant costs on the industry 
without offsetting safety benefits. Also, the costs could have a 
significant effect on U.S. oil supplies by causing production to stop 
at many marginal oil wells. Further, while we understand Cook Inlet's 
desire to extend oversight to all low-stress lines, we believe we 
should focus on those posing the most significant threats to USAs, and 
on the most critical issues associated with those lines. Therefore, the 
proposal only includes safety requirements that address the most 
prominent threats to low-stress lines. This determination is based on 
our analysis of the most critical safety concerns, including the data 
submitted by API and AOPL demonstrating that corrosion and third party 
damage cause the greatest threat to the integrity of these lines.
    The third alternative was to adopt the approaches API and/or AOPL 
suggested. For gathering lines, AOPL's suggested approach includes 
limited operation and maintenance rules and reporting rules for 
accidents and safety-related conditions. The operation and maintenance 
rules would be the public education rules in Sec.  195.440, the 
excavation damage prevention rules in Sec.  195.442, and the corrosion 
control rules in subpart H of part 195. The reporting rules would be 
provisions of subpart B of part 195 related to accidents and safety-
related conditions. The benefit of this alternative is it would focus 
on the leading threats to rural gathering lines--corrosion and 
excavation damage. Also the information collected would enable PHMSA to 
recognize safety problems and evaluate the effectiveness of adopting 
only limited safety rules.
    By focusing mainly on the threats of excavation damage and 
corrosion, the AOPL approach does not address significant safety issues 
related to pipeline design, construction, and testing, such as choice 
of materials, qualification of welding procedures, and suitable test 
pressure. AOPL's approach does not include installation and maintenance 
of line markers under Sec.  195.410 or operator qualification program 
requirements under part 195, subpart G. The use of line markers to warn 
excavators of the presence of hazardous liquid pipelines has long been 
a safety practice in the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. Regarding 
operator qualifications, Congress mandated PHMSA establish regulations 
for operator qualification programs on pipelines. Congress also 
directed pipeline operators to develop and adopt a qualification 
program should DOT fail to prescribe standards and criteria.
    The fourth alternative to address rural onshore low-stress lines 
was also the approach suggested by API and AOPL. This approach would 
subject rural onshore hazardous liquid low-stress lines that have a 
diameter greater than 8\5/8\ inches, operate at 20 percent SMYS, and 
are located within a \1/4\-mile of an unusually sensitive area to 
certain regulatory requirements. The regulatory approach includes the 
reporting requirements of part 195, subpart B, the corrosion control 
rules in part 195, subpart H, the damage prevention rules in Sec.  
195.442, and installation of line markers in Sec.  195.410. The API and 
AOPL approach also includes leak detection, assessment, and limited 
operator qualification requirements. We believe the information 
collected about threats on non-regulated gathering lines also applies 
to threats associated with regulated hazardous liquid lines. Based on 
this information, we believe corrosion and excavation damage are the 
leading causes of accidents on low-stress lines. Thus, the benefit of 
this approach is it focuses on these leading threats to rural onshore 
low-stress lines.
    A disadvantage of the API and AOPL approach for rural gathering 
lines is it does not address other significant safety issues related to 
pipeline design, construction, and testing, and does not include the 
public awareness requirements under Sec.  195.440. In its petition, API 
and AOPL did not explain why these safety requirements were omitted. 
Regarding public awareness, in 49 U.S.C. 60112(c), Congress mandated 
that pipeline facility operators establish and carry out continuing 
public awareness programs to notify the public about the location of 
its facilities, one-call programs and accident procedures. Further, the 
API and AOPL proposal does not fully address the operator

[[Page 52510]]

qualification requirements. Congress mandated PHMSA establish 
regulations for operator qualification programs on pipelines. Congress 
also directed pipeline operators to develop and adopt a qualification 
program should DOT fail to prescribe standards and criteria. Although 
Congress provided some flexibility in the statute, we believe that the 
API and AOPL approach is too limited because it only addresses one of 
the multiple facets of the operator qualification requirements.
    As a fifth alternative, we considered developing new safety rules 
for ``regulated rural gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural low-
stress lines.'' We rejected this alternative because we have no reason 
to conclude part 195 safety rules now in effect for non-rural gathering 
and low-stress lines would be less effective if applied to rural lines. 
Our experience shows part 195 rules are effective and should work well 
for ``regulated rural gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural low-
stress lines'' because the integrity threats involved are similar for 
all the lines.
    Finally, we considered modified versions of the approaches API and 
AOPL suggested for rural gathering and low-stress lines. This approach 
would provide integrity protection by focusing on the primary threats 
to these lines--corrosion and third-party damage. For rural gathering, 
this alternative would add, line marker requirements under Sec.  
195.410 and the qualification requirements in subpart G for the 
operator's personnel. Markers are a traditional way of alerting 
excavators to dig carefully in the presence of hazardous liquid 
pipelines. Under 49 U.S.C. 60131, DOT must require pipeline operators 
to develop and adopt a qualification program that complies with the 
standards DOT develops for such programs.
    In addition, the modified version would require operators to 
establish a maximum operating pressure for each steel line according to 
Sec.  195.406, and to design, construct, and test lines according to 
applicable part 195 rules. A maximum operating pressure would guard 
against the danger of accidental overpressure. Part 195 design, 
construction, and testing rules would ensure a minimum standard of 
integrity for all new, replaced, and relocated ``regulated gathering 
lines.'' We required similar rules on markers, operating pressure, 
design, construction, and testing for rural gas gathering lines in a 
final rule published March 15, 2006 (71 FR 13289). These requirements 
should not be too burdensome, because similar safety requirements are 
in the ASME B31.4 Code, ``Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid 
Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids,'' a consensus standard followed widely 
throughout the hazardous liquid pipeline industry.
    Our modified approach to the API and AOPL suggestion for rural 
onshore low-stress lines would include public awareness requirements in 
Sec.  195.440 and a modified version of the operator qualification 
requirements. These operators are also required under 49 U.S.C. 
60102(a) to have public awareness program. Under 49 U.S.C. 60131(e)(5) 
and (f), Congress allowed DOT and State pipeline safety agencies to 
waive or modify any operator qualification requirement if not 
inconsistent with the pipeline safety laws. PHMSA believes an approach 
similar to the modified approach used for gas gathering would be 
appropriate for low-stress lines. This modification would allow 
operators to describe the processes they have in place to ensure 
personnel performing operations and maintenance activities are 
qualified.
    Additionally, the modified version would require operators to 
establish a maximum operating pressure for each steel line according to 
Sec.  195.406, and to design, construct, and test lines according to 
applicable part 195 rules. A maximum operating pressure would guard 
against the danger of accidental overpressure. Part 195 design, 
construction, and testing rules would ensure a minimum standard of 
integrity for all new, replaced, and relocated ``regulated rural low-
stress lines.'' Lastly, the modified version would require an operator 
to periodically assess the integrity of the lines to identify and 
address any conditions affecting the integrity of the lines, no matter 
the cause, and to establish and maintain a leak detection program based 
on API's recommended practice 1130 (API 1130) ``Computational Pipeline 
Monitoring,'' which is currently being used by industry and is 
incorporated by reference into our existing regulations. Because API 
1130 only addresses pipelines transporting a stable single phase 
product, operators transporting other products will need to develop 
another appropriate leak detection method.
    Further, our modified version includes additional corrosion control 
requirements for onshore rural gathering lines and low-stress lines. 
Our proposal includes a requirement to continuously monitor these lines 
and based on identified changes to clean and accelerate the corrosion 
control program when necessary.
    A discussion of the safety rules we are proposing is in section IV 
of this preamble.

IV. Proposed Regulations for Regulated Rural Gathering Lines

a. Proposed Definition of ``Regulated Rural Gathering Line''

    We are defining those rural gathering lines presenting a higher 
risk to public health and the environment as regulated rural gathering 
lines.\4\ PHMSA believes Congress did not think all rural gathering 
lines subject people or the environment to a high enough risk to 
qualify as a regulated rural gathering line. This reasoning is based on 
the various risk factors the statute requires us to consider, the 
complete exemption in most rural areas of low-pressure lines 6 inches 
or less in nominal diameter. Thus, we have determined higher risk rural 
areas are those areas we defined in Sec.  195.6 as unusually sensitive 
areas. These areas include drinking water and ecological resource 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although the statute directs us to define a regulated 
gathering line, for purposes of this rulemaking, we are proposing to 
define regulated rural line. Non rural onshore gathering is already 
regulated under part 195 and we are not proposing to change 
regulation of these currently regulated lines. This rulemaking 
focuses on certain rural onshore gathering not presently regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA considered whether the present definition of gathering line 
in Sec.  195.2 is acceptable. This definition represents the typical 
function of a crude oil gathering line--to move crude oil away from a 
production facility. It also represents the typically small size of 
crude oil gathering lines--8\5/8\ inches or less in nominal outside 
diameter. Since its adoption, the definition has served to identify 
which petroleum pipelines in rural areas are exempt from part 195 
because they are gathering lines. Also, in our experience, operators 
and government inspectors have had little difficulty using the 
definition for that purpose. We decided, therefore, the Sec.  195.2 
definition of gathering line is acceptable for helping to define a 
regulated rural gathering line. Furthermore, because we are not 
changing the coverage of the non-rural gathering lines we now regulate, 
we see no reason to change the long-standing definition of a gathering 
line.
    Congress identified ``throughput'' and ``composition of the 
transported hazardous liquid'' as two other possible risk factors to 
consider in determining which rural gathering lines should be 
regulated. We think it unnecessary to include these factors. 
Throughput, or volume of oil moved in a unit of time, is largely 
dependent on pipe diameter and operating pressure. And the composition 
of hazardous liquids transported by gathering lines is chiefly crude 
oil.

[[Page 52511]]

    AOPL was the only commenter to offer a definition of ``regulated 
gathering line.'' Under this definition, a ``regulated gathering line'' 
would be a line 6 inches or more in nominal diameter operating above 20 
percent of SMYS that could affect a high-consequence area.
    An advantage of AOPL's definition is its use of the statutory risk 
factors of diameter, operating pressure (expressed as a percentage of 
SMYS), and location (could affect a high consequence area) to identify 
higher-risk lines. And we think the definition uses these factors in a 
reasonable way.
    Our proposed definition of a regulated rural gathering line is 
based in part on AOPL's suggested definition. AOPL's definition is 
based on gathering lines in high consequence areas. High consequence 
areas include populated areas. We already regulate onshore gathering 
lines in populated areas and are not proposing to change any of the 
pipeline safety requirements applicable to these lines. Therefore, we 
are basing our definition on those rural gathering lines meeting 
certain criteria and located within a defined zone of an unusually 
sensitive area as defined in Sec.  195.6. Unusually sensitive areas 
include drinking water and ecological resource areas. These areas are 
unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid 
pipe release because a release into these areas could substantially 
impact the Nation's supply of drinking water, endanger public health, 
and create long-term or irrevocable damage to the habitat of threatened 
and endangered species.
    Our proposed definition, like AOPL's definition, does not use line 
length as a defining characteristic of these higher-risk rural lines. 
Line length, a statutory risk factor, is relevant to potential spill 
volume, because the shorter the line, the less oil there is to drain 
out after shutdown. Part 194 recognizes this risk factor by not 
requiring spill response plans for certain small pipelines 10 miles or 
less in length. However, because short lines can cause substantial 
environmental harm in vulnerable locations, part 194 does not allow 
operators to use the 10-mile exception for lines proximate to navigable 
waters, public drinking water intakes, or environmentally sensitive 
areas.
    Instead of using AOPL's criteria to define a regulated rural 
gathering line as one that could affect an unusually sensitive area, we 
have decided to use a buffer. We saw a potential difficulty in 
operators determining which lines could affect an unusually sensitive 
area. Part 195 uses the phrase ``could affect a high consequence area'' 
to identify pipelines subject to integrity management rules (Sec.  
195.452). Section I. B. of Appendix C to part 195 lists various risk 
factors, such as topography and shutdown ability, an operator can use 
in deciding if a pipeline ``could affect a high consequence area.'' 
PHMSA believes this would be too burdensome for most operators. To 
reduce the burden of making this decision for possibly thousands of 
rural line segments, we are proposing a buffer--a distance beyond the 
defined area where a rural gathering line presumably could not affect 
that area.
    PHMSA considered the buffers used in Sec. Sec.  194.103(c)(4) and 
(5) of the Oil Spill response plan requirements. Those sections require 
a buffer of five miles from a public drinking water intake and one mile 
from an environmentally sensitive area. However, after reviewing the 
incident data, we concluded those buffer sizes were not warranted. 
During the June 26th public meeting, AOPL clarified it recommended a 
buffer of \1/4\-mile for rural gathering lines because its data 
revealed the largest on land spill from a pipeline traveled no more 
than 2 acres. The operating pressure is also a factor when evaluating 
the potential spill volume from a pipeline. Thus, gathering lines 
operating at lower pressures do not have the potential to release as 
much product as those operating at higher pressures. Thus, we have 
determined that gathering lines that operate above 20% SMYS and that 
are between 6\5/8\ inches and 8\5/8\ inches in diameter and are located 
in or within \1/4\-mile of an USA have the potential to substantially 
impact public health and the environment. We invite comments and 
supporting technical documentation on whether a larger buffer is needed 
to provide better protection for these critical environmental areas. 
PHMSA would also like data on the miles of gathering lines likely to be 
affected by any increase in the size of the buffer.
    Thus, we are proposing to add a new section 195.11(a) that would 
define a ``regulated rural gathering line'' as a rural onshore 
gathering line with the following characteristics:
     A nominal diameter between 6\5/8\ inches and 8\5/8\ 
inches;
     Operates at a maximum operating pressure established under 
Sec.  195.406 that corresponds to a stress level greater than 20 
percent of SMYS or, if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is 
not constructed with steel pipe, at a pressure of more than 125 psig; 
and
     Is located in or within \1/4\-mile of an unusually 
sensitive area as defined in Sec.  195.6.
    A pressure of 125 psig conservatively approximates 20 percent of 
SMYS for steel pipe of unknown stress level, based on minimum weight 
pipe 8 inches in nominal diameter with 24000 psi yield strength.
    We invite comments and supporting technical documentation on 
whether values other than 125 psig and \1/4\-mile would be more 
suitable for the respective purposes. We are particularly interested in 
comment on whether the proposed \1/4\-mile buffer is adequate to 
protect those drinking water and ecological resources particularly 
vulnerable to damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release, or 
whether a larger buffer is needed. If commenters believe a larger 
buffer is needed, data on the pipeline mileage that would be affected 
would be helpful.

b. Proposed Rewrite of Sec.  195.1

    Section 195.1 specifies the hazardous liquid pipeline facilities 
subject to the requirements of part 195 and those exempt from coverage. 
We propose to rewrite this section to clarify which lines are subject 
to part 195. This section clarifies that onshore non-rural gathering 
lines are subject to all of part 195's requirements. A regulated rural 
gathering line, as defined in this proposal, would be subject to the 
limited safety requirements provided in a new Sec.  195.11, discussed 
below.
    The rewrite of Sec.  195.1 clarifies the present rulemaking does 
not affect onshore gathering lines in inlets of the Gulf of Mexico. 
Onshore gathering in these inlets would continue to be subject only to 
the inspection and burial rules in Sec.  195.413. At no point during 
our public meetings on regulating onshore gathering lines in rural 
areas did anyone comment on the need to expand these rules.
    We also have clarified the language in several of the exceptions 
from part 195's coverage. We have not changed the intent or scope of 
any of these. We have simply cleaned up some of the language to make 
the exceptions easier to read.

c. Proposed Safety Requirements for ``Regulated Rural Gathering Lines''

    A new Sec.  195.11(b) would be added to the part 195 regulations to 
specify the safety requirements for these lines. We have developed 
these proposed requirements to manage the integrity of rural gathering 
lines by providing complete protections to address the known 
significant threats and to continue to collect more information about 
these lines through the reporting requirements. Based on our review of 
the gathering lines in populated areas and our investigation of the 
non-

[[Page 52512]]

regulated lines in rural areas, we have found that the highest risks to 
these lines are corrosion and third party damage. This proposal focuses 
on those threats. Through continuous monitoring of the lines, required 
as part of the corrosion program, the operators will gather more 
information about the risk the lines pose. We seek comments on whether 
this proposal should specifically address other threats. We also seek 
comment on whether PHMSA should require all gathering line operators to 
submit an annual report and accident reports as required for regulated 
operators by Sec. Sec.  195.49 and 195.59.
    Operators would first have to identify all segments of regulated 
rural gathering pipeline. Operators would have to design, install, 
construct, initially inspect, and initially test new, replaced, 
relocated, or otherwise changed steel lines according to certain 
existing part 195 rules. However, for pipelines converted to hazardous 
liquid service, operators would have the option of following the 
conversion rules in Sec.  195.5.
    Operators of newly constructed non-steel lines would have to notify 
PHMSA at least 90 days before the start of transportation. The notice 
would give PHMSA an opportunity to review the pipeline and order any 
changes necessary for safety.
    Under the proposal, operators would have to comply with the 
reporting requirements in subpart B of part 195. The other proposed 
safety requirements for these regulated rural lines include:
     Establishing a maximum operating pressure under Sec.  
195.406;
     Installing and maintaining line markers under Sec.  
195.410;
     Establishing and applying a public education program 
according to Sec.  195.440;
     Establishing and applying a damage prevention program 
according to Sec.  195.442;
     For steel lines, controlling and remediating corrosion 
according to subpart H of part 195; to include cleaning, continuous 
monitoring, and remediating any problems identified; and
     Establishing and applying an operator qualification 
program that describes the processes the operator has in place to 
ensure the personnel performing operations and maintenance activities 
are qualified.
    To address one of the major threats to these lines, we are 
proposing operators include these lines in their corrosion control 
program. A corrosion control program under part 195's subpart H 
includes provisions on how an operator is to remediate corroded pipe. 
We are also proposing additional corrosion control requirements in the 
form of continuous monitoring and cleaning. We seek public comment on 
whether the continuous monitoring provision primarily associated with 
corrosion control should be as proposed, or extended to other 
provisions of this proposed rule.
    Although not listed as a specific safety requirement in the rule, 
operators are required to continue to comply with the drug and alcohol 
testing rules in 49 CFR part 199. Part 199 requires operators of 
pipelines subject to part 195 to test personnel for use of prohibited 
drugs and misuse of alcohol. Persons subject to testing are those who 
perform a regulated operation, maintenance, or emergency-response 
function on a regulated pipeline.
    Under Sec.  195.406, the maximum operating pressure of a pipeline 
is the lowest pressure applicable to the pipeline among a list of 
pressures. However, most of the pressures listed apply only to 
pipelines subject to the design and pressure testing rules of part 195. 
The only pressure applicable to pipelines not subject to those rules is 
in Sec.  195.406(a)(2)--the design pressure of any other component of 
the pipeline. Because operators normally do not operate a hazardous 
liquid pipeline above its design pressure, compliance with Sec.  
195.406(a)(2) should not be difficult on ``regulated rural gathering 
lines'' to which part 195 design and pressure testing rules would not 
apply. Still, we do not want operators to reduce operating pressure 
unnecessarily on any existing line with a history of satisfactory 
operation. So we invite comments on the need to amend Sec.  195.406 to 
allow such continued operation and, if so, what that amendment should 
be.
    The proposal provides, except for the requirements applicable to 
newly-constructed pipelines and corrosion control, the safety 
requirements apply to all materials of construction.
    The proposed time frames for compliance with each proposed safety 
requirement are shown in section V.d. of this document. The proposed 
compliance deadlines vary according to the safety requirements. To gain 
a better understanding of how different time frames will affect the 
costs and feasibility of an operator's compliance, we have proposed a 
range of compliance times. This approach will allow operators longer 
time frames for complex activities that are more costly to implement, 
and to readily implement less complex safety requirements. For example, 
under the proposal, operators would have six months, 12 months or some 
period in between those time frames after the effective date of the 
final rule to identify regulated rural gathering pipeline segments and 
to comply with the reporting requirements. The corrosion control 
program, including the additional requirements for continuous 
monitoring, remediation and cleaning, would have to be in place within 
two to three years from the final rule's effective date. We believe a 
longer time frame for the corrosion control program may be necessary 
for pipelines that require major construction to implement new 
monitoring, remediation, or cleaning facilities. Additionally, 
recoating of the line involves major construction and a longer planning 
and construction cycle may be necessary.
    A final rule will require a period somewhere in the proposed 
ranges. Our preference is for shorter compliance periods. But we have 
proposed a lower and upper range of compliance periods so that in a 
final rule we can set compliance times that can be done quickly enough 
to address any problems on these lines but are not cost burdensome, 
impractical or have an adverse effect on energy supply. We seek 
comments and supporting documentation to address the effects of these 
compliance periods on an operator's operations. These comments should 
address cost, operational difficulties in complying, technology 
concerns, and other issues, such as time needed to secure necessary 
permits.

d. New Unusually Sensitive Areas

    Proposed Sec.  195.11(c) concerns onshore rural gathering lines 
that become ``regulated rural gathering lines'' because of a new 
unusually sensitive area. Operators should at least annually review the 
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) to determine if the addition of 
a new unusually sensitive area has caused any of their unregulated 
rural gathering lines to become ``regulated rural gathering lines.'' We 
are proposing a range between six months to one year for compliance 
with applicable safety requirements when a previously unregulated line 
becomes regulated. We seek comments and supporting documentation that 
address the effect of these time frames on the costs and feasibility of 
compliance. We want to completely understand the impacts of an 
operator's ability to comply with a shorter or longer time frame.

e. Records

    Proposed Sec.  195.11(d) provides record retention requirements. 
Certain records,

[[Page 52513]]

such as the segment identification records, would have to be retained 
for the life of the pipe. Other records would have to be kept according 
to the record keeping requirements of the specific section or subpart 
referenced.

V. Proposed Rules for ``Regulated Rural Low-Stress Lines''

a. Proposed Definition of ``Regulated Rural Low-Stress Lines''

    We are proposing to define regulated rural low-stress lines as 
those rural low-stress lines presenting a higher risk to the public's 
health and the environment. Congress directed PHMSA to focus pipeline 
regulation on protecting people and the environment against risks 
presented by pipeline transportation, but not to exempt pipeline 
facilities solely because they operate at low-stress levels. Thus, as 
with rural gathering lines, we determined the higher risk rural areas 
that should be protected from a release from a low-stress pipeline are 
those areas we defined in Sec.  195.6 as unusually sensitive 
environmental areas. These areas include drinking water and ecological 
resource areas.
    After evaluating the accident history and the API and AOPL proposed 
def