# Pipeline Safety: Unusually Sensitive Areas for the Great Lakes, Coastal Beaches, and Certain Coastal Waters

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 86 FR 73173
- **title:** Pipeline Safety: Unusually Sensitive Areas for the Great Lakes, Coastal Beaches, and Certain Coastal Waters
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2021-12-27
- **effective on:** 2022-02-25
- **summary:** PHMSA is amending the pipeline safety regulations to explicitly state that certain coastal waters, the Great Lakes, and coastal beaches are classified as unusually sensitive areas for the purpose of compliance with the hazardous liquid integrity management regulations. This amendment implements mandates contained in the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2016, as amended by the PIPES Act of 2020. A hazardous liquid pipeline that could affect these newly designated areas must be included in an operator's integrity management program.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2021-27751.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2021-27751.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2021-27751
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/27/2021-27751/pipeline-safety-unusually-sensitive-areas-for-the-great-lakes-coastal-beaches-and-certain-coastal
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021) [Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 73173-73186] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2021-27751] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 195 [Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0152; Amdt. No. 195-104] RIN 2137-AF31 Pipeline Safety: Unusually Sensitive Areas for the Great Lakes, Coastal Beaches, and Certain Coastal Waters AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Interim final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending the pipeline safety regulations to explicitly state that certain coastal waters, the Great Lakes, and coastal beaches are classified as unusually sensitive areas for the purpose of compliance with the hazardous liquid integrity management regulations. This amendment implements mandates contained in the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2016, as amended by the PIPES Act of 2020. A hazardous liquid pipeline that could affect these newly designated areas must be included in an operator's integrity management program. DATES: The effective date of the interim final rule is February 25, 2022. Submit comments by February 25, 2022. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. PHMSA- 2017-0152, by any of the following methods: E-Gov Web: http://www.regulations.gov . This site allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. [[Page 73174]] Fax: 202-493-2251. Instructions: Identify the Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0152, at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov . Note: All comments received are posted without edits to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov , as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy . Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments in response to this notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as ``Confidential;'' (2) send PHMSA a copy of the original document with the CBI deleted along with the original, unaltered document; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sayler Palabrica, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, DOT: PHMSA--PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sayler Palabrica by phone at 202-744- 0825 or via email at [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction II. Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management III. National Pipeline Mapping System IV. Consequences of Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Spills in Coastal Areas and the Great Lakes V. Legislative and Administrative History VI. Summary of Amendments VII. Effective Date and Comments VIII. Good Cause Exception IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Introduction PHMSA issues this interim final rule (IFR) to satisfy mandates within the PIPES Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-183) and the PIPES Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260) to expand application of PHMSA's integrity management (IM) requirements to approximately 2,905 additional miles of hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines \1\ located within or that could affect the Great Lakes, coastal beaches, or ``certain coastal waters.'' The IFR will provide enhanced protection from hazardous liquid pipeline accidents similar to the 2010 Marshall, MI and the 2015 Refugio Beach, CA oil spills, and ensure that events like the anchor strike that damaged Enbridge's Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac are promptly identified and remediated before they result in environmental damage. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Hereinafter, references to ``hazardous liquid'' pipelines will refer to both hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines for simplicity, as they are both governed by 49 CFR part 195. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) are subject to additional safety requirements. Specifically, such pipelines must be included in an IM program. An HCA is defined in 49 CFR 195.450 as a commercially navigable waterway, a high population area, an other populated area, or an unusually sensitive area (USA) as defined in Sec. 195.6. Section 195.6 identifies two types of USAs, ``USA drinking water resources'' and ``USA ecological resources.'' Every USA is, therefore, also an HCA. Under Sec. 195.452, an operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline that is located in a USA, or in an area where a release could affect a USA, is required to comply with IM requirements. Section 19 of the PIPES Act of 2016 amended 49 U.S.C. 60109(b)(2) and directed PHMSA to revise the definition of a USA in Sec. 195.6(b) to explicitly state that the Great Lakes, coastal beaches, and marine coastal waters are USA ecological resources. Congress further clarified this mandate in Section 120 of the PIPES Act of 2020 (division R of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Pub. L. 116-260). With this clarification, the PIPES Act of 2020 introduced and defined the term ``certain coastal waters'' to replace the undefined term ``marine coastal waters.'' Congress defined ``certain coastal waters'' as the ``territorial sea of the United States; the Great Lakes and their connecting waters; and the marine and estuarine waters of the United States up to the head of tidal influence.'' Furthermore, Congress defined the term ``coastal beach'' as ``any land between the high- and low-water marks of certain coastal waters.'' This IFR incorporates these terms and the statutory definitions into Sec. 195.6, as directed by Congress. PHMSA maintains a map of HCAs, excluding proprietary or security sensitive information, in the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60132(d). PHMSA intends to map ``certain coastal waters'' and ``coastal beaches'' as a single data layer within the NPMS. PHMSA will generate this map based on a combination of geographic information system (GIS) data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Clean Water Act \2\ dataset, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Estuary Data Mapper,\3\ and the NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer.\4\ Each of these datasets are generated by expert scientific agencies of the Federal government and are available on the internet for public viewing. These datasets are further described in section VI of this IFR. PHMSA seeks comments on the use of these datasets to represent the location of the statutory definitions of ``certain coastal waters'' and ``coastal beaches'' in the NPMS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management, ``Clean Water Act Dataset'' (Nov. 9, 2016), https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/clean-water-act (last accessed October 13, 2021). \3\ EPA, ``High End Scientific Computing--Estuary Data Mapper Dataset'' (Dec. 7, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/hesc/estuary-data-mapper-edm (last accessed June 21, 2021). \4\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management, ``Sea Level Rise Viewer Dataset'' (July 2020), https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/noaa-digital-coast-sea-level-rise-and-coastal-flooding-impacts-viewer (last accessed October 13, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While the primary effect of the IFR is expanding the hazardous liquid pipeline mileage subject to IM program requirements, defining new USAs also affects the requirements for certain pipelines in rural areas. Proximity to a USA also determines if an onshore rural gathering line is a regulated rural gathering line subject to safety requirements described in Sec. 195.11(b). Additionally, a pipeline categorized as a [[Page 73175]] Category 3 rural low-stress pipeline could become a Category 1 or Category 2 pipeline if it is located within \1/2\ mile of a USA. PHMSA is not changing the definition of ``offshore'' in Sec. Sec. 192.3 or 195.2 as a part of this IFR. Those sections define ``offshore'' to mean beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast of the United States that is in direct contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters. The new USAs defined in Sec. 195.6 do not affect the definition of ``offshore'' in Sec. Sec. 192.3 or 195.2. Even if data used to map the new USAs refer to ``offshore'' areas as defined or designated by a separate statute, such as the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), the regulatory definition of ``offshore'' in Sec. Sec. 192.3 and 195.2 is distinct from these other statutes and will remain unchanged. In other words, the definitions of ``coastal beach'' and ``certain coastal waters'' exist independently of the definition of ``offshore'' in Sec. Sec. 192.3 or 195.2. A pipeline could be located within certain coastal waters and be either ``onshore'' or ``offshore'' under Sec. Sec. 192.3 and 195.2. Accordingly, altering the definition of ``offshore'' is beyond the scope of this IFR. II. Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management The objective of the hazardous liquid IM requirements at Sec. 195.452 is to reduce the risks of pipeline spills in areas where a release could have significant consequences. In a series of final rules published between 2000 and 2002, PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration, promulgated regulations that defined HCAs and required operators to develop and implement IM programs for each hazardous liquid pipeline that could affect an HCA in the event of a release. HCAs are defined in Sec. 195.450 and represent areas where a release could have significant adverse consequences to human health and safety, the environment, and commercial navigation. The IM requirements that operators must implement to protect HCAs are specified in Sec. 195.452. IM requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines were implemented in four final rules. The first final rule was ``Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators with 500 or More Miles of Pipeline),'' \5\ followed by ``Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage,'' \6\ and ``Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators with Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines).'' \7\ PHMSA made updates to these requirements in a 2019 final rule titled ``Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines.'' \8\ These rules established a regulatory framework focused on risk identification, assessment, and mitigation. PHMSA's IM regulations require operators of pipelines located in areas where a release could affect an HCA to take additional steps to address threats to the integrity of those pipelines by operating and maintaining those pipelines in accordance with an effective IM program. These measures require operators to devote additional analysis, assessment, and remediation resources to protect HCAs from pipeline releases that could adversely affect human health and safety, cause environmental damage, and disrupt commercial navigation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 65 FR 75377 (Dec. 1, 2000). \6\ 64 FR 9532 (Feb. 8, 2001). \7\ 67 FR 2136 (Jan. 16, 2002). \8\ 84 FR 52260 (Oct. 1, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. High Consequence Areas Section 195.450 of the existing hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations defines an HCA as: (1) A commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists; (2) a high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined and delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile; (3) an other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau, that contains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or unincorporated city, town, village, or other designated residential or commercial area; or (4) an unusually sensitive area, which is defined in Sec. 195.6 to be a drinking water or ecological resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. Section 195.452(d)(2) requires operators to incorporate newly identified HCAs into their baseline assessment plans within one year from the date the area is identified, and complete a baseline assessment of any pipeline that could affect the newly identified HCA within 5 years from the date the area is so designated. B. Unusually Sensitive Areas Section 195.6 defines a USA as a drinking water or ecological resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. The regulatory definition of USA elaborates that a drinking water resource generally refers to a source of drinking water (e.g., a surface water intake, a source water protection area for wells, or a recharge area for a karst aquifer) for a community water system, or a non-transient, non-community water system (e.g., a school or factory) with no adequate alternative supply of drinking water. The definition of a USA ecological resource includes areas containing one or more critically imperiled species or ecological communities; a multi-species assemblage area; a migratory waterbird concentration area; and an area containing an imperiled, threatened, endangered species, depleted marine mammal species, or an imperiled ecological community containing species with a limited range. C. Integrity Management Requirements As described above, every USA is an HCA, and a hazardous liquid pipeline that could affect an HCA must be included in an operator's hazardous liquid IM program. Section 195.452(b) requires an operator to develop and follow a written IM program. Section 195.452(f) requires that a hazardous liquid pipeline IM program include each of the following elements: A process for identifying pipelines that could affect an HCA, including USAs (see Sec. Sec. 195.6, 195.450, Appendix C to part 195, ``Guidance for Implementation of an Integrity Management Program''); A plan for scheduling and performing baseline assessments (Sec. 195.452(c)); An analysis of pipeline safety risks that integrates all available information about pipeline integrity and potential consequences (Sec. 195.452(g)); Criteria for performing remedial action in response to pipeline integrity issues identified during assessments or other analysis (Sec. 195.452(h)); A continuous process for scheduling, performing, and interpreting integrity assessments and evaluations (Sec. 195.452(j)); Identification of ``preventative and mitigative measures'' to protect the pipeline from identified integrity threats (Sec. 195.452(i)); Procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the IM program (Sec. 195.452(k)); and A process to ensure integrity assessment results and information analysis is performed by qualified personnel (Sec. 195.452(f)(8)). [[Page 73176]] When an operator determines that a pipeline segment could affect an HCA, it must integrate information about that segment, including information about potential consequences, into its risk analysis and add the segment to the baseline assessment plan. The minimum data attributes operators are required to consider are listed in Sec. 195.452(g)(1). This includes information about the pipeline itself; excavation damage threats; information about the potential impacts of a release on an HCA; and data from integrity assessments, cathodic protection surveys, patrols, and other maintenance and surveillance tasks. This analysis is used to prioritize and schedule integrity assessments and identify preventative and mitigative measures. If a pipeline segment could affect a newly identified USA as a result of this IFR, the operator must include that segment in their IM program and periodically assess the integrity of that segment. Section 195.452(d)(2) requires an operator to add pipelines that cross or could affect new HCAs into their baseline assessment plan within 1 year of obtaining that new HCA information and complete the baseline assessment within 5 years of that date. Section 195.452(c)(1)(i) requires that the baseline assessment be done with an in-line inspection tool unless construction or operational factors make an in-line inspection impracticable. The operator must select an in-line inspection tool, or combination of tools, capable of detecting, at a minimum, corrosion and dents. If cracking is identified as a probable integrity threat, then the operator must select a tool or combination of tools capable of detecting cracks. If an in-line inspection is impracticable, an operator may perform a baseline assessment using a pressure test, external corrosion direct assessment, or other technology with advance notification to PHMSA. After the baseline assessment, a segment that could affect an HCA must be reassessed regularly. The assessment schedule for both the baseline assessment and reassessments must be established by considering all risk factors, including, at a minimum, each of the factors listed in Sec. 195.452(e). Section 195.452(j)(3) requires operators to continually assess the pipeline's integrity at no greater than 5-year intervals, not to exceed 68 months, except as provided in Sec. 195.452(j)(4). If the operator detects a defect during an assessment, the operator must remediate it pursuant to the requirements in Sec. 195.452(h) and the operator's procedure. That paragraph requires an operator to establish repair criteria that meet minimum standards for remediation methods and repair of various repair conditions. In addition to assessment and repair requirements, operators must use a risk analysis to identify preventative and mitigative measures necessary to avert negative impacts in HCAs. Examples of preventative and mitigative measures identified in Sec. 195.452(i) include adopting damage prevention best practices, improving cathodic protection monitoring, shortening inspection intervals, installing emergency flow restricting devices,\9\ installing leak detection equipment, or providing enhanced response training to operator personnel and emergency responders. Operators must implement preventative and mitigative measures based on an analysis of the likelihood of a pipeline release and the potential consequences of the release. The minimum elements of this risk analysis are described in Sec. 195.452(i)(2). Pipelines that could affect an HCA must have a means to detect leaks on the pipeline system(s) pursuant to Sec. 195.452(i)(3), though Sec. Sec. 195.134 and 195.444 require leak detection systems on hazardous liquid pipeline systems outside of HCAs as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ A check valve or a remote control valve as defined in Sec. 195.450. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. National Pipeline Mapping System A. NPMS Introduction PHMSA maintains a map of HCAs in the NPMS pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60132(d). The NPMS includes GIS resources that allow users to view pipeline maps and pipeline operations information, depending on the profile of the user. The NPMS contains locations and information about gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants under PHMSA jurisdiction. The NPMS also contains hazardous liquid pipeline HCA data \10\ and voluntarily submitted breakout tank \11\ data. NPMS data for hazardous liquid pipeline facilities include geospatial data, attribute data for pipeline segments, metadata, and operator contact information. Operators are required to submit NPMS data annually or review their current data in the NPMS to confirm it is still accurate pursuant to Sec. 195.61. PHMSA processes operator data submissions year-round and the online mapping applications and resources are updated approximately every other month. These data and submission requirements are described in further detail in Sec. 195.61 and the Operator Standards Manual, available on the NPMS web page.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ While HCAs for hazardous liquid pipelines are defined areas under Sec. 195.450, HCAs for gas pipelines are identified under Sec. 192.903 based on the location, diameter, and maximum allowable operating pressure of the pipeline and the pipeline's proximity to nearby structures. See also 49 U.S.C. 60109(b). \11\ A breakout tank is a storage tank in a hazardous liquid pipeline system used as part of the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline. See Sec. 195.2. \12\ PHMSA, ``National Pipeline Mapping System Standards for Pipeline, Liquefied Natural Gas and Breakout Tank Farm Operator Submissions'' (Oct. 2017). https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Operator_Standards.pdf . (last accessed June 21, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The NPMS contains information from over 1,500 operators totaling over 225,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines and over 310,000 miles of gas transmission pipelines. Operators also voluntarily provided information on the location of 3,476 breakout tanks out of 8,412 reported in annual reports for the 2019 reporting year. PHMSA and others use NPMS data for a wide variety of purposes, including emergency response, inspection planning, risk assessment, regulatory support, spatial analysis, map production, public awareness, and education. B. NPMS Access to Geospatial Data The NPMS website is structured into three pages by user-type to facilitate access to available information and resources. The pages include: (1) The Government Official Portal, intended for government officials at the local, State, or Federal level, including emergency responders and tribal governments; (2) the Operator Portal, intended for employees of pipeline operators who contribute data to the NPMS, including operators of gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipelines, breakout tanks, and LNG plants under PHMSA jurisdiction; \13\ and (3) the General Public Portal, available for members of the public. The General Public Portal includes information about gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines, an operator directory, and the NPMS Public Map Viewer for exploring or printing NPMS maps on a per-county basis. The General Public Portal also has maps of HCAs. This includes the location of high-population areas derived from U.S. Census Bureau data and commercially navigable waterways from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' National Waterway Network. As an initial step to implement Section 19 of the PIPES Act of 2016, PHMSA, in 2019, incorporated GIS data for the Great Lakes USA ecological resource to the NPMS based on the definition of the Great Lakes from 33 U.S.C. 1268 and [[Page 73177]] geospatial information from NOAA's U.S. State Submerged Lands dataset.\14\ NOAA updates this dataset as needed to ensure accuracy in depicting Great Lakes shorelines and last updated the dataset in 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Operators can also use the Operator Portal to access information regarding NPMS data submission requirements, procedures, and HCA GIS data layers to support IM program planning. \14\ PHMSA, Press Release, ``PHMSA ID's Great Lakes as an Ecological Resource in NPMS'' (Oct. 21, 2019), https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/phmsa-ids-great-lakes-ecological-resource-npms . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to the three user-type pages discussed above, PHMSA has also developed the Pipeline Information Management Mapping Application (PIMMA). PIMMA is a password-protected, web-based mapping application limited to government officials and pipeline operators. Each government user only has access to the maps of pipelines in their area of jurisdiction, and each operator user only has access to maps of the pipelines they operate. Government officials or operators can apply for PIMMA access or log in to PIMMA from the NPMS homepage. Information on how to use and access PIMMA is available within the Government Official and Operator Portals. Government officials and operators can request access to pipeline facility GIS data from the NPMS for use in their own GIS. This option allows government officials and operators to produce maps and conduct analyses. Government officials and operators may also apply for access to the NPMS pipeline facility GIS data in their area of jurisdiction or for the pipeline facilities they operate. Hazardous liquid operators may only access USA GIS data for the States in which they operate or are constructing hazardous liquid pipelines. Except for HCA and USA GIS data available on the General Public Portal (i.e., populated areas, commercially navigable waterways, and the Great Lakes), all GIS data from the NPMS is considered for official use only and requires an application process that can include an official request letter from a pipeline company manager. Detailed instructions for access to GIS data from the NPMS are available on the NPMS website at https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/ . PHMSA conducts reviews of publicly available dataset updates every two years to maintain HCA data accuracy. PHMSA announces updates via emails to pipeline operators and on the NPMS website. IV. Consequences of Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Spills in Coastal Areas and the Great Lakes Any release of petroleum, petroleum products, or other hazardous liquids can adversely affect human health and safety, threaten wildlife and habitats, impede commercial navigation, or damage personal or commercial property. Spills into bodies of water present increased risk because the water and water currents act as conveyances to increase the spread of the spill. These factors greatly complicate response, recovery, and remediation efforts for spills affecting bodies of water and intertidal land along the shoreline. Major oil spills within the Great Lakes, shorelines, or coastal waters would have extreme, negative, and persistent impacts on shoreline ecology, benthic communities at the base of the ecosystem, fisheries, human health, and the economy of coastal communities. This IFR takes immediate action necessary to ensure that operators take appropriate steps to protect the Great Lakes, coastal communities, and marine waters from the impacts of hazardous liquid spills into these fragile environments. Although prediction of the precise number of avoided accidents realized by this rulemaking's extension of IM requirements to currently unregulated pipelines is challenging, the historical examples below underscore the magnitude of adverse environmental consequences for coastal beaches and coastal waters in the event of a significant pipeline accident. The most recent significant pipeline accident that affected coastal beaches and coastal waters was a 2015 oil spill where a pipeline operated by Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains) failed due to external corrosion.\15\ While this rupture occurred in an HCA and therefore was subject to PHMSA's IM requirements,\16\ it highlights many of the probable impacts of oil pipeline spills into coastal areas. The rupture released 2,934 barrels (approximately 123,000 gallons) of heavy crude oil near Santa Barbara, California. Approximately 500 barrels (21,000 gallons) of crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean near Refugio State Beach. On March 13, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement that required Plains pay over $60 million in penalties, clean-up costs, and natural resources assessment costs and damages.\17\ This spill is estimated to have contaminated over 3,000 acres of shoreline, subtidal, and benthic habitats, and resulted in the injury or death to hundreds of birds and marine mammals.\18\ In addition to the severe ecological impacts, the spill itself and cleanup activities significantly limited recreational and commercial use of the oil contaminated coastal beaches and surrounding areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ PHMSA, ``Failure Investigation Report: Plains Pipeline, LP, Line 901 Crude Oil Release, May 19, 2015--Santa Barbara County, California'' (May 2016), https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/foia/plains-pipeline-lp-line-901-failure-investigation-report (last accessed June 21, 2021). \16\ PHMSA and others brought a civil suit against Plains alleging, inter alia, that numerous violations of PHMSA's IM requirements contributed to the accident. See United States of America, et al. v. Plains All America Pipeline, L.P., Docket No. 2:20-cv-02415, Complaint at ]] 130-158 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020). Plains acceded to a consent decree resolving those violations. See United States of America, et al. v. Plains All America Pipeline, L.P., Docket No. 2:20-cv-02415, Consent Decree at ] 70 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020). \17\ DOJ, ``U.S. Pipeline Company to Modify its National Operations to Implement Safeguards Resulting from Oil Spill'' (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-pipeline-company-modify-its-national-operations-implement-safeguards-resulting-oil-spill (last accessed April 2, 2021). \18\ California Department of Fish and Wildlife et. al., ``Refugio Beach Oil Spill: Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment'' (April 22, 2020), https://wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR/NRDA/Refugio (last accessed June 21, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another accident demonstrating the significant adverse environmental consequences of pipeline spills into bodies of water was the rupture of Enbridge Line 6B, which occurred on July 26, 2010, near the town of Marshall, Michigan. While this spill occurred on a segment of pipe within an HCA \19\ and along an inland, freshwater river, rather than along the coast, the adverse impacts resulting from this spill are similar to what could occur if a spill occurred in connecting waters of the Great Lakes estuaries, and other marine waters up to the head of tidal influence, which are specifically addressed in this rule. This accident occurred when a 30-inch pipeline ruptured, spilling approximately 20,000 barrels of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River and surrounding wetlands. The release contaminated 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River, and cleanup efforts were complicated by the propensity for diluted bitumen and other heavy crude oils to sink. As a result of the spill, the impacted segment of the river remained closed for public, recreational use for nearly two years.\20\ Environmental impacts continued in the years [[Page 73178]] following the spill, including decreases in fish abundance and variety in downstream areas until at least 2013.\21\ Enbridge agreed to pay over $1 billion in cleanup costs and $177 million in a settlement with DOJ, including $61 million in penalties.\22\ Other events occurring on pipelines in or that could affect HCAs, such as a 2018 anchor strike that dented the submerged Enbridge Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac,\23\ and the October 2021 discovery of a large crude oil release from a pipeline near Huntington Beach, CA,\24\ further highlight the damage that can be done by a pipeline spill into the Great Lakes or other coastal waters. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Although this pipeline was subject to PHMSA's IM requirements, the operator's non-compliance with those requirements was a cause of the accident. While operator error is always possible, PHMSA believes that the inclusion of these requirements in this rulemaking will reduce the risk of future accidents. See PHMSA, CPF No. 3-2012-5013, In the Matter of Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Sept. 7, 2012), https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/320125013/320125013_Final%20Order_09072012.pdf . \20\ Klug, Fritz, ``Kalamazoo River reopens to the public, 2 years after Enbridge oil spill in Michigan,'' Michigan Live (Jan. 20, 2019), https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2012/06/see_what_sections_of_the_kalam.html . \21\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., ``Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment for the July 25-26, 2010 Enbridge Line 6B Oil Discharges near Marshall, MI'' (Oct. 2015), https://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/ec/nrda/MichiganEnbridge/#nrdar . \22\ DOJ, ``United States, Enbridge Reach $177 Million Settlement After 2010 Oil Spills in Michigan and Illinois'' (July 20, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-enbridge-reach-177-million-settlement-after-2010-oil-spills-michigan-and (last accessed July 26, 2021). \23\ National Transportation Safety Board, MAB-19/12, ``Marine Accident Brief, Anchor Contact of Articulated Tug and Barge Clyde S VanEnkevort/Erie Trader with Underwater Cables and Pipelines'' (May 21, 2018), https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/MAB1912.aspx . \24\ PHMSA, CPF No. 5-2021-054-CAO, Corrective Action Order issued to Amplify Energy Corp. (Oct. 4, 2021), https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/phmsa-corrective-action-order-amplify-energy-corporation-beta-offshore . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-pipeline spills in coastal areas have also resulted in widespread environmental damage and economic impacts. In 1969, an offshore oil production platform experienced a blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. That accident contaminated 35 miles of California shoreline.\25\ That event was the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history until the grounding of the crude oil tanker, Exxon Valdez, in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989,\26\ and later the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.\27\ Each of these events led to widespread harm to marine and coastal ecosystems, and economic harm to coastal resources such as fisheries and recreational areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ Mai-Duc, Christine, ``The 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill That Changed Oil and Gas Exploration Forever,'' Los Angeles Times (May 20, 2015), https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-barbara-oil-spill-1969-20150520-htmlstory.html . \26\ EPA, ``Exxon Valdez Spill Profile--U.S. EPA Emergency Response,'' https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/exxon-valdez-spill-profile (last accessed June 21, 2021). \27\ EPA, ``Deepwater Horizon--BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill--U.S. EPA Enforcement,'' https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/deepwater-horizon-bp-gulf-mexico-oil-spill (last accessed June 21, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Legislative and Administrative History A. PIPES Act of 2016 With the passage of the PIPES Act of 2016, Congress amended 49 U.S.C. 60109(b) to add ``locations . . . that have been identified as part of the Great Lakes or have been identified as coastal beaches, [or] marine coastal waters'' to the list of ``areas where a pipeline rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term environmental damage.'' Section 19 of the PIPES Act of 2016 ordered that PHMSA ``revise section 195.6(b) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to explicitly state that the Great Lakes, coastal beaches, and marine coastal waters are USA ecological resources for purposes of determining whether a pipeline is located in a high consequence area.'' As described above, these areas will therefore be defined as HCAs, and operators of hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect such areas will be required to implement IM programs for those segments. Based on the 2016 mandate, PHMSA searched for ``locations that have been identified as part of the Great Lakes or have been identified as coastal beaches, [or] marine coastal waters.'' During this search, described in section VI.B, PHMSA used the definition of the Great Lakes from 33 U.S.C. 1268 and geospatial information from NOAA's U.S. State Submerged Lands dataset and added the Great Lakes to the NPMS. PHMSA was unable to locate any existing U.S. statutory or regulatory provision(s) providing similarly helpful definitions of ``marine coastal waters'' or ``coastal beaches.'' Due to uncertainty regarding how to define ``locations . . . that have been identified as . . . coastal beaches [or] marine coastal waters'' as described in the PIPES Act of 2016, PHMSA held two public meetings, discussed below, and began drafting an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to seek public input on how to best define those terms in part 195 and provide GIS data representing the location of those areas in the NPMS. B. Public Meetings PHMSA held public meetings on November 17, 2017, and June 12, 2019, to discuss definitions for ``coastal beaches,'' ``marine coastal waters,'' \28\ and ``the Great Lakes,'' and to identify GIS data sources to map such features in the NPMS. Both were in-person meetings in Washington, DC with options for remote participation. Materials presented during these meetings are available at the web page for each meeting.\29\ The 2017 meeting included discussions on how PHMSA currently maps commercially navigable waterways in the Great Lakes. Representatives from PHMSA, NatureServe, NOAA, the Pipeline Safety Trust (PST), Phillips 66, Arcadis, and the Coastal and Marine Operators Pipeline Industry Initiative (CAMO) gave presentations. The meeting included discussions of potential data sources for shor
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 102273