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

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 73 FR 31634
- **title:** Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2008-06-03
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** PHMSA is amending its pipeline safety regulations to extend added protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas that could be damaged by failure of a rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering line or low-stress pipeline. Building on PHMSA's existing regulatory framework, the rule is intended to protect designated "unusually sensitive areas" (USAs)--locations requiring extra protection because of the presence of sole-source drinking water, endangered species, or other ecological resources. This rule defines "regulated rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines" and requires operators of these lines to comply with safety requirements that address the most common threats to the integrity of these pipelines: Corrosion and third-party damage. In accordance with the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006, the rule also significantly narrows the regulatory exception for rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines by extending all existing safety regulations, including integrity management requirements, to large-diameter low- stress pipelines within a defined "buffer" area around a USA. The final rule requires operators of these, and all other low-stress pipelines, to comply with annual reporting requirements, furnishing data needed for further rulemaking required by the PIPES Act.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-e8-12099.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-e8-12099.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-e8-12099
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/06/03/E8-12099/pipeline-safety-protecting-unusually-sensitive-areas-from-rural-onshore-hazardous-liquid-gathering
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 73 Issue 107 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008) [Federal Register Volume 73, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 31634-31646] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: E8-12099] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 195 [Docket ID PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15864] 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: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending its pipeline safety regulations to extend added protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas that could be damaged by failure of a rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering line or low-stress pipeline. Building on PHMSA's existing regulatory framework, the rule is intended to protect designated ``unusually sensitive areas'' (USAs)--locations requiring extra protection because of the presence of sole-source drinking water, endangered species, or other ecological resources. This rule defines ``regulated rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines'' and requires operators of these lines to comply with safety requirements that address the most common threats to the integrity of these pipelines: Corrosion and third-party damage. In accordance with the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006, the rule also significantly narrows the regulatory exception for rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines by extending all existing safety regulations, including integrity management requirements, to large-diameter low- stress pipelines within a defined ``buffer'' area around a USA. The final rule requires operators of these, and all other low-stress pipelines, to comply with annual reporting requirements, furnishing data needed for further rulemaking required by the PIPES Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lane Miller by phone at (405) 954-4969 or by e-mail at [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (71 FR 52504; September 6, 2006) proposing to extend pipeline safety regulations to rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and rural onshore hazardous liquid low-stress pipelines located in or within a quarter mile of previously-defined ``unusually sensitive areas'' (See Sec. 195.6). Unusually sensitive areas (USAs) that are in non- populated areas need extra protection because they contain sole-source drinking water, endangered species, or other ecological resources that could be adversely affected by accidents or leaks from hazardous liquid pipelines. There is no universal definition of either gathering lines or low-stress pipelines. For purposes of safety regulation, PHMSA defines gathering lines by reference to diameter and function and low- stress pipelines by reference to the stress level at which they operate (see Sec. 195.2). With limited exceptions, pipelines operating at low-stress in rural areas and onshore gathering lines in rural areas have not been regulated under Federal safety regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines (49 CFR part 195). Section 195.2 defines a ``rural area'' as 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. Low-stress pipelines in these areas have been regulated only if they cross commercially navigable waterways (Sec. 195.1(b)(i)(C)); in the case of rural gathering lines, only limited requirements (inspection and burial (Sec. 195.1(b)(4)) have applied and only to onshore gathering lines located in Gulf of Mexico inlets. The proposed rule would have defined ``regulated rural onshore gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural onshore low-stress lines'' and would have required operators of such pipelines to comply with a threat-focused set of requirements in part 195. The safety requirements proposed to be applied addressed the most common threats to the integrity of these rural lines: Corrosion and third-party damage. The proposal was intended to provide additional integrity protection, to prevent significant adverse environmental consequences, and to [[Page 31635]] enhance public confidence in the safety of these rural pipelines. Before PHMSA issued the NPRM, Congress adopted the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act), which the President signed into law on December 29, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-468). Section four of the PIPES Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102) requires PHMSA to ``issue regulations subjecting low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines to the same standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid pipelines.'' The Act expressly provides that the new regulations may be phased in. The threat-focused set of requirements PHMSA proposed in the NPRM, although drawn from part 195, would not have satisfied the ``same standards and regulations'' requirement in the PIPES Act. PHMSA concluded it would be inefficient to finalize that proposal without change and then later impose the rest of the Part 195 requirements. PHMSA noted that the rural low-stress pipelines covered by the NPRM are those where additional safety regulation is most important--larger- diameter pipelines that can have adverse impacts on unusually sensitive areas. PHMSA therefore concluded that the most appropriate means of implementing the PIPES Act mandate was to extend full regulation to the higher-risk, larger-diameter rural low-stress pipelines in this initial phase, followed by regulation of all smaller diameter low-stress pipelines and larger-diameter pipelines located outside of the defined ``buffer'' area. PHMSA presented its plan for phased rulemaking to the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) in January 2007. For low-stress pipelines, PHMSA recommended that regulations be developed in two phases and explained that in phase one it would extend all of part 195 to those higher risk, rural low-stress pipelines addressed in the NPRM and in phase two would address those remaining unregulated rural low-stress pipelines. This phased approach will allow PHMSA to bring the higher-risk pipelines under immediate regulation while gathering more comprehensive data for later rulemaking concerning the lower-risk unregulated rural pipelines. To implement phase one, PHMSA modified its NPRM via a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that proposed to apply all part 195 requirements to any rural low-stress pipeline with a nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or more and located in or within one-half mile of a USA. This buffer area was increased from one-quarter to one- half mile based upon comments from the NPRM. PHMSA published the SNPRM (72 FR 28008; May 18, 2007). II. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines Proposed Changes Congress gave DOT specific authority to define gathering lines for purposes of safety regulation, and to regulate a class of rural gathering lines called ``regulated gathering lines'' (49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21) and 60101(b)). This authority directed DOT to consider functional and operational characteristics in defining gathering lines. Further direction was to consider such factors as location, length of line, operating pressure, throughput, and gas composition in deciding which rural lines warrant regulation. 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'' (See H.R. Report No. 102-247-Part 1, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 23 (1991)). In PHMSA's view, Congress wanted to limit ``regulated gathering lines'' to lines posing a significant risk and to limit regulation by using a risk-based approach for areas where the consequences of a pipeline failure would be the greatest. DOT subsequently revised its regulations in part 195 to cover hazardous liquid gathering lines in non-rural areas. The rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines PHMSA proposed to regulate in the September 6, 2006 NPRM are those that present the greatest risk to the environment. The NPRM proposed to add a new Sec. 195.11(a) to 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 the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) or, if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not constructed with steel pipe, at a pressure of more than 125 pounds per square inch (psi) gage; and Is located in or within a quarter mile of an unusually sensitive area as defined in Sec. 195.6. In the NPRM, PHMSA further proposed that rural gathering lines meeting these criteria would have to comply with a focused set of requirements in part 195 that would address the principal risks posed by these rural pipelines. The PIPES Act did not affect this proposal. The subsequent SNPRM did not change what had been proposed in the NPRM with respect to these rural gathering lines. Comments on the NPRM PHMSA received comments from 22 organizations in response to the NPRM for rural hazardous liquid gathering lines. These included two pipeline operators, one consultant providing services to pipeline operators, eleven trade associations and related organizations, and eight public interest groups involved in pipeline safety. Scope As described above, PHMSA proposed applying regulatory requirements to rural gathering lines located in or within a quarter mile of a USA using a risk-based approach on those areas where the consequences of a pipeline failure would be the greatest. A number of commenters suggested changes, discussed below, to the scope of the proposed rule. PHMSA has not made any changes in the final rule in response to these comments. a. Effect on production facilities. Some commenters sought clarification about whether the proposed changes would affect production facilities. Several commenters, including several associations representing petroleum producers, suggested that a clearer definition of ``production facility'' is needed to confirm that crude oil producers are not subject to the regulations. The Western States Petroleum Association, supported by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), requested clarification on the applicability of the new requirements to flow lines. Response PHMSA does not have statutory authority to regulate production facilities. ``Production facility'' has long been defined in Sec. 195.2, and PHMSA did not propose to change the definition in the NPRM. Therefore, revising the definition is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Further, it is commonly understood within industry and by regulators that flow lines are part of production facilities. The regulations in part 195 do not apply to any portion of production facilities. b. Alternative bases. Some commenters questioned the use of a USA as a basis for determining the scope of the proposed rule. The North Slope Borough (Alaska) Planning [[Page 31636]] Department suggested that part 195 requirements should apply to all North Slope pipelines. The Department also suggested that PHMSA revise the definition of a USA. In addition, the Ohio Oil and Gas Association (OOGA) requested clarification to ensure the proposed regulations do not include pipelines within a quarter mile of individual residential water wells absent other triggering features. Response The rule applies safety regulations to those portions of rural gathering lines (and rural low-stress pipelines as discussed further below) where leaks can cause the most significant damage. In regulating pipelines based on risk, PHMSA does not have a basis for extending regulation to other unregulated rural gathering lines. PHMSA does not have regulatory authority over all types of production operations conducted on the North Slope. This rule regulates rural gathering lines, which are not present on the North Slope based upon the current production operation designs. Therefore, the rural gathering line provisions in this final rule do not apply to the production operations on the North Slope. The clarification requested by OOGA is unnecessary. PHMSA proposed to regulate rural onshore gathering lines based on their proximity to USAs. USAs are defined in Sec. 195.6. Section 195.6(a) defines drinking water sources; individual residential wells are not included in this definition. Neither the NPRM nor the SNPRM proposed changes to the USA definition to include such wells. Any changes to the definition of a USA are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. c. Volume throughput. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) suggested that PHMSA include volume throughput as a contributing factor, along with location and size, in classifying pipelines for purposes of establishing risk and determining the appropriate regulatory regime. Response PHMSA has decided to use operating stress level and size of a gathering line as opposed to volume throughput for the purposes of establishing the correlation of risk and consequence to a USA. Volume throughput can fluctuate considerably on a daily basis depending on the operation of a pipeline. Stress level and size does correlate to volume but stress level is an understood pipeline characteristic in the pipeline industry. Therefore, PHMSA did not include a throughput criterion. d. Drug and alcohol testing. The Pipeline Testing Consortium, Inc. (PTC) commented that drug and alcohol testing is not listed as one of the applicable safety requirements. Response Drug and alcohol testing requirements are contained in 49 CFR part 199. Section 199.1 states that they apply to operators of all facilities subject to part 192, 193, or 195. Since the gathering lines that will become regulated under this final rule are now ``subject to'' part 195, no further change is needed to ensure the applicability of drug and alcohol testing requirements. Buffer for Rural Onshore Gathering Lines The NPRM proposed to define a regulated rural onshore gathering line as one meeting certain criteria and located in or within a quarter mile of a USA. A number of comments addressed the adequacy of the quarter mile buffer. Industry commenters supported the use of the buffer, noting that analysis has shown that a quarter mile buffer will encompass most releases that could affect a USA, and that use of a buffer will pose less of a burden than a requirement for operators to determine, through comprehensive analysis, which pipeline segments could affect a USA. Taking a contrary position, Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council (CIRCAC) noted that the buffer fails to address the potential for spilled hazardous liquids to move to environmentally-sensitive areas through water or watersheds from farther than a quarter mile away and would thus fail to include some pipelines that could affect a USA. Response PHMSA agrees that using a pre-defined buffer to determine which rural gathering lines will be regulated may except some rural gathering line segments that could affect USAs. Nevertheless, PHMSA's experience with oversight of ``could affect'' determinations for hazardous liquid pipelines under integrity management requirements has shown that these analyses are quite difficult and resource intensive.\1\ Data available to PHMSA shows the largest spill on land traveled no more than two acres from the site of failure. This data, coupled with the relatively lower pressure and smaller diameter of gathering lines, leads us to conclude that a quarter mile buffer is adequate to encompass most pipelines that could affect a USA. We are using a buffer approach to focus on the pipelines that pose the most significant risk and to reduce the burden on these operators to determine which of their pipelines are subject to regulation. It would be unnecessarily burdensome to require all operators of these pipelines to perform complete ``could affect'' analyses when it is unlikely such analyses would result in much additional pipe becoming regulated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 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.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actions Required for Regulated Rural Gathering Lines The NPRM proposed that regulated rural gathering lines comply with a set of requirements that focused on the most significant risks to these pipelines--corrosion and third-party damage. The NPRM further proposed that operators continuously monitor their pipelines to identify and remediate any changes in operating conditions that could necessitate cleaning the lines and accelerate their corrosion control program as needed. Several commenters questioned the proposed required actions or suggested that additional actions would be appropriate. a. Continuous monitoring. API commented that the proposed requirement to continuously monitor regulated gathering lines for corrosion was unnecessary because the existing regulations adequately address corrosion and that it was unclear what additional monitoring is needed. Response We have clarified what we intended by the proposed requirement for ``continuous monitoring''. In the final rule we are requiring that operators identify operating conditions that might require cleaning the pipeline or using other measures, such as inhibitors, to prevent conditions that may lead to internal corrosion (e.g. , the build-up of solids). Gathering lines, by their nature, carry crude oil that typically contains contaminants or impurities such as basic sediment and water. These contaminants do not cause a problem where the oil is traveling at high velocities in the pipeline. Under this condition, these contaminants do not separate from the fluid stream and settle on the bottom of the pipe. If the velocity of the fluid stream slows down, these impurities can drop out of the oil which can potentially result in internal [[Page 31637]] corrosion. PHMSA considers that monitoring operating conditions and running cleaning pigs as appropriate will decrease the likelihood of internal corrosion. b. Minimum standards for maintenance. ADEC commented that the regulations should establish minimum standards for maintenance pigging frequency and other maintenance operations designed to prevent a spill. ADEC also suggested that the regulations should require monitoring and recording of corrosion rates through the use of weight-loss coupons or comparable technology. Response The requirement to monitor conditions and take additional actions to address potential internal corrosion as needed is new. It also addresses ADEC's concern about the minimum frequency of maintenance pigging and other activities to prevent a spill. PHMSA does not consider it practical to establish a one-size-fits-all minimum frequency for these activities, since the frequency at which they are needed varies considerably for different pipeline conditions. A requirement that operators monitor their conditions and implement actions as appropriate to prevent or mitigate internal corrosion is more appropriate than specified minimum frequencies for maintenance operations. c. Integrity management requirements. CIRCAC noted that we did not propose any integrity management requirements for rural gathering lines. Response The integrity management requirements are not necessary for rural gathering lines. PHMSA's experience indicates that the most significant threats to these pipelines are third-party damage and corrosion. The requirements we are imposing on these pipelines address those threats. Imposing integrity management requirements would require operators to perform individual risk analyses. This analysis entails a foot by foot evaluation of threats to the pipeline taking into account the topography on both sides of the pipeline, the volume transported, the diameter of the pipeline, the type of pipe, and the pressure in the pipeline and the impact of the release. Our experience does not support the need to impose such a burden. Instead, we have considered the risk to these pipelines, identified the applicable threats and required the measures that best address these threats. These measures include developing a damage prevention program, complying with the corrosion control requirements of subpart H, and monitoring and mitigating conditions that could lead to internal corrosion. Economic Impact Several commenters, including a number of associations representing petroleum producers, noted that rural gathering lines are generally low revenue pipelines. They contended that some of the proposed compliance measures will be cost-prohibitive and will cause operators to abandon these pipelines. Response PHMSA does not intend to cause the unnecessary abandonment of pipelines providing valuable contributions to the U.S. energy supply. For gathering lines that will become regulated under this rule, the safety regulations imposed represent a minimal set of requirements that focus on the most significant threats to these pipelines. While they may impose some additional burden, PHMSA considers this threat-focused set of requirements necessary to assure adequate safety. Reporting and Data Gathering Cook Inlet Keeper commented that data collection requirements for rural gathering lines have been inadequate and supported the proposal that operators of these gathering lines follow the reporting requirements of subpart B. Response The final rule makes the reporting requirements of part 195, subpart B, applicable to those rural gathering lines meeting the definition of a regulated rural gathering line. III. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Low-Stress Pipelines Proposed Changes The NPRM proposed adding a new Sec. 195.12(a) to define a ``regulated rural low-stress line'' as an onshore pipeline in a rural area meeting the following criteria: A nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or more; Located in or within a quarter mile of a USA as defined in Sec. 195.6; and Operating at a maximum pressure established under Sec. 195.406 that corresponds to a stress level equal to or less than 20 percent of SMYS, or if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not constructed with steel pipe, a pressure equal to or less than 125 psi (861 kPa) gage. For these rural low-stress pipelines PHMSA proposed to apply a threat-focused set of requirements in part 195. Most comments received regarding this proposal were addressed in the SNPRM and are not further discussed here. As discussed above, section four of the PIPES Act requires PHMSA to ``issue regulations subjecting low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines to the same standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid pipelines''. To address this mandate PHMSA issued a SNPRM proposing to extend all part 195 requirements to rural low-stress pipelines meeting certain criteria. This is phase one of PHMSA's phased approach to implementing the mandate. Phase one addresses the larger-diameter, higher-risk, rural low-stress pipelines that could pose a greater threat to USAs. This phase will also help capture the data PHMSA needs before it can extend part 195 coverage to all other unregulated, rural low-stress pipelines in phase 2. The SNPRM: Revised the proposed definition to include rural low- stress pipelines in or within a half mile of a USA, Applied to pipelines meeting the listed criteria of all requirements of part 195 rather than the threat-focused set of requirements proposed in the NPRM, Allowed operators to conduct ``could affect'' analyses of which pipeline segments could affect a USA in lieu of the buffer for application of the integrity management requirements of Sec. 195.452, and Allowed operators of pipelines meeting specified criteria to notify PHMSA if they would incur an excessive economic burden in complying with the integrity management assessment requirement. PHMSA proposed to stay compliance with the integrity management assessment requirements while it reviewed the notification. Based on the outcome of the review, PHMSA proposed to grant the operator a special permit imposing alternative safety requirements in lieu of an assessment. The SNPRM also proposed to extend subpart B reporting requirements to operators of all unregulated low-stress pipelines. PHMSA explained that this was necessary so that it would have accurate and complete data about these types of pipeline operations for phase two of its low- stress pipeline rulemaking. Comments on the SNPRM and NPRM (to the Extent not Addressed in the SNPRM) PHMSA received comments from ten organizations in response to the SNPRM. These included one pipeline operator, six trade associations and related organizations, and three public [[Page 31638]] interest groups involved in pipeline safety. Buffer a. Buffer size. Several trade associations challenged our proposal to increase from a quarter to a half mile the buffer used to determine which rural low-stress pipelines will be subject to regulation. The commenters noted that PHMSA stated in the SNPRM that it considered a quarter mile to be adequate but had increased the buffer for conservatism and to address concerns of public interest groups. The commenters further noted that none of these groups provided any technical basis for a particular buffer size and stated that they believe expanding the buffer to a half mile is unwarranted. Response As described above, the PIPES Act requires that all rural low- stress pipelines be subject to all the safety requirements in part 195. This requirement largely renders moot disagreements about the size of the buffer used here. In the final rule, as was proposed in the SNPRM, PHMSA has doubled the size of the buffer, to a half mile, for added conservatism. For phase one, we are approximating the could-affect analysis by using a buffer to provide a reasonable means of identifying most of the pipelines that could affect USAs. This increase in the buffer size from one-quarter to one-half mile increases the estimated amount of low-stress pipelines covered in this final rule from 694 miles to 803 miles. b. Buffer vs. analysis. Cook Inlet Keeper again objected to the use of a buffer approach in lieu of detailed could-affect determinations. Cook Inlet Keeper further objected to the option for operators to use could-affect determinations to reduce the scope of pipeline covered by integrity management requirements in the absence of an analogous means to increase the scope of coverage where pipeline segments more than a half mile from a USA could have an effect in the event of a leak. Response For phase one, the buffer is the first step in applying part 195 requirements to all rural low-stress pipelines. For this phase, PHMSA considers it appropriate to increase the size of the buffer to be used for bringing rural low-stress pipelines under regulation as a response to the expressed concerns of the public interest groups and Congress. PHMSA also notes that this final rule allows operators to analyze their pipelines to determine which segments could affect USAs for purposes of application of integrity management requirements. This could-affect analysis could result in a larger or smaller area than the half mile buffer. As PHMSA has done with other integrity management inspections, these analyses will be scrutinized for adequate supporting technical justification and appropriate consideration of risk factors. Reporting Requirements a. Lack of integrity management data. The Independent Producers Association of America (IPAA), the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS), and API objected to the proposal to apply all the reporting requirements in subpart B to those rural low-stress pipelines that will be considered in the phase two rulemaking. These associations suggested PHMSA require only infrastructure information for these currently non-regulated pipelines until phase two is implemented, because operators are not required to implement integrity management requirements on these pipelines and would lack the associated data for annual and incident reports. Cook Inlet Keeper supported requiring operators of all low-stress pipelines to report their incidents and safety-related conditions but took no position on data related to integrity management. Response Parts J and K of the annual report form require reporting of data derived from integrity management assessments. PHMSA recognizes that operators will not have integrity management information on pipelines to which integrity management requirements are not applicable. We have modified the new Sec. 195.48 so that operators of low-stress pipelines do not have to complete parts J and K of the annual report form, or to report mileage in high consequences areas,\2\ unless they are also subject to integrity management requirements. However, all operators of low-stress pipelines must report incidents and safety-related conditions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ High consequence areas are defined in 49 CFR 195.450. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Effective dates for reporting. API noted the range of proposed dates for complying with the reporting requirements differed between proposed sections 195.12(b)(1), where it was stated as 6-12 months, and 195.48 where it was stated as 6-9 months. Cook Inlet Keeper supported the proposed implementation timeframes but made no choices for particular values within the ranges proposed. Response In the SNPRM, we solicited comments on a range of potential implementation timeframes for reporting requirements and received no comments on which time period was appropriate. PHMSA will require that reporting begin six months after the effective date of the final rule. This date was included in the range suggested in both sections cited by API, and PHMSA believes it affords operators reasonable time to make necessary changes in internal data collection and processing procedures. Economic Burden Several organizations noted that the increased burden to conduct integrity management assessments could cause operators of some pipelines associated with marginal and ``stripper'' wells to cease operation, causing loss of oil supply or use of more costly and more- risky truck transport. To address these comments, PHMSA proposed a procedure under which operators serving such wells could obtain relief from the integrity management assessment requirement. The SNPRM proposed to limit this procedure to operators of rural low-stress pipelines serving production facilities and operating at a flow rate lower than or equal to 14,000 barrels per day. The operator of such a pipeline could notify PHMSA of its intent to abandon the pipeline because of the economic burden associated with the integrity management assessment requirements. PHMSA would stay the integrity management assessment requirements pending review of such notification and, based on the analysis of the notification, could grant the operator a special permit to allow continued operation of the pipeline while also assuring safety through alternative safety requirements. API and SemCrude (a pipeline operator) suggested that the economic burden notification provision be made available to all low-stress pipelines by eliminating the criterion that a pipeline must carry crude oil from a production facility. Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico (IPANM) supported the proposed exemption from the inline inspection requirements for pipelines with less than 14,000 barrels per day flow rate because of the potential loss of energy supply if wells were abandoned. API and AOPL recommended that PHMSA prepare a guidance document describing the factors it intends to consider in its review of economic burden notifications. IPA, IPAMS, and Cook [[Page 31639]] Inlet Keeper supported the proposed notification requirement, with Cook Inlet Keeper noting that it proposes ``a reasonable approach to ensure that PHMSA's rule will not result in loss of a critical energy supply.'' Response PHMSA did not propose an exemption from compliance. Rather, in the SNPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow operators of pipelines meeting specified criteria to notify PHMSA that an integrity management assessment would be too economically burdensome and to have their particular circumstances considered. In these limited instances, after consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), we intended to issue a special permit that would require other, less economically burdensome safety requirements in lieu of an assessment. We have included this provision in the final rule. This provision is intended to address impacts on producing wells that are only marginally economical. Operation of these wells would be affected if the pipeline serving them is shut down because of an economic inability to comply with the assessment requirements. The result would be a loss to U.S. energy supply of oil from shutting these wells or an adverse impact on safety by a shift to another form of transportation (e.g. , trucks). As such, the concern is specifically limited to pipelines that carry crude oil from production facilities. We recognize that the final rule will impose further economic burden on those operators of rural low-stress pipelines that have not previously been subject to PHMSA's regulations and oversight. In most cases, this will not be a factor. As PHMSA explained in the SNPRM, we believe most of the rural low-stress pipelines that will be subject to the final rule are held by large operators, which are already complying with the requirements of part 195. In addition, in keeping with the PIPES Act, we consider the regulatory burden justified by the increased safety and environmental protection that will result from implementation of the final rule. PHMSA believes that API and AOPL requested guidelines because the SNPRM did not include the types of information PHMSA wants operators to provide in the notification. Therefore, PHMSA has added in this final rule a list of the topics that must be addressed when notifying us of an economic burden in Sec. 195.12(c)(2). PHMSA will consider the need for additional guidance as experience is gained in evaluating these notifications. Scope a. USA as basis. The North Slope Borough Planning Department recommended, as they did for rural gathering lines, that part 195 regulations apply to all the pipelines on the North Slope. The North Slope Borough Planning Department also recommended that PHMSA expand the USA definition. Response This rulemaking is the first phase that brings a portion of rural low-stress pipelines under regulation. As discussed above, PHMSA is acting in phases to meet the statutory mandate that all low-stress pipelines be made subject to safety regulations. Future phases will make all low-stress pipelines on the North Slope subject to regulation. No change in the USA definition is needed to accomplish this. b. Residential wells. The OOGA sought assurance that the definition of regulated rural low-stress pipelines applies only to hazardous liquid pipelines. The OOGA also requested clarification that the proposed regulations are not meant to include pipelines within a quarter mile of individual residential water wells, absent other triggering features. Response The definition of regulated rural low-stress pipelines is included in part 195. Part 195 is applicable only to hazardous liquid pipelines. This definition therefore has no effect on other types of pipelines. OOGA's comment concerning residential wells applied to both gathering lines and low-stress pipelines and has been addressed in the gathering line discussion above. c. Potential for jurisdictional confusion. The Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) suggested that PHMSA provide additional clarification about which pipelines are subject to the SNPRM to prevent confusion within the regulated industry and among state regulatory agencies and to prevent the requirements from being inadvertently applied to gathering lines. Additionally, IPAA and IPAMS noted that some confusion may still exist in the SNPRM concerning applicability of some requirements to gathering systems. API suggested that to avoid confusion between rural gathering lines covered under Sec. 195.11 and rural low-stress pipelines covered under Sec. 195.12, we include a nominal diameter greater than 8\5/8\ inches as a criterion defining regulated rural low-stress pipelines. Response We do not think further clarification is needed in the final rule. We are not adopting API's recommendation to define a low-stress pipeline as a pipeline with a nominal diameter greater than 8\5/8\ inches. Gathering line is defined in Sec. 195.2 to be a pipeline of 8\5/8\ inches or less nominal outside diameter that transports petroleum from a production facility. The key characteristic is coming from a ``production facility.'' A pipeline that comes from a production facility that is greater than 8\5/8\ inches in diameter is not a gathering line, but a pipeline in transportation. If this type of line operates at a pressure that is less than 20% SMYS, it would be subject to the requirements proposed for low-stress pipelines. There are also pipelines that are upstream of refining that do not come from a production facility and are pipelines in transportation. If these pipelines are greater than 8\5/8\ inches and operate at a pressure that is less than 20% SMYS, they also would be subject to the requirements proposed for rural low-stress pipelines. IV. Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking Several commenters raised issues beyond the scope of the NPRM or SNPRM. ADEC suggested we include in Sec. 195.452, a specific requirement to periodically measure and record the wall thickness of each pipeline and establish in the regulations a minimum pipe wall ``fit for service'' standard. ADEC also suggested that the regulations should require evaluation of flow rates, water content, sediment, and upset conditions as part of the integrity assessment proposed in the NPRM. API recommended that the repair criteria in Sec. 195.452(h) be revised to relax the requirement to repair dents without metal loss. API states that dents operating at such low pressures pose a much lower risk of failure. API and Bridger Pipeline LLC suggested that ``petroleum storage'' be added to the list of facilities in proposed Sec. 195.1(b)(4) so that short (i.e., less than one mile long) low-stress pipelines serving such facilities would be excluded from regulation. In support of its comment, API noted that the logic used in a 1997 rulemaking to establish the other exclusions contained in Sec. 195.1(b)(4) applies equally well to pipelines serving petroleum storage facilities. Response Each of these c
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 86903